M14: America’s Worst Service Rifle - What Went Wrong?

[@johnsanko4136]

For those who may not know, when Ian starts talking about Springfield Armory around the 3 minute mark, he's talking about the US Armory and Arsenal at Springfield Mass, which was shut down in 1968. It was one of the major small arms development sites for the US military from the Revolutionary War to Vietnam. This Springfield Armory is not the same as the Illinois based Springfield Armory company that is still in business today.

[@shroom903]

You mean it's different from the new gun importer that buy Croatian handguns and markets them as a US branded handguns 😂

[@rusTORK]

It's a good clarification because i thought: -Springfiled Armory made M14? Whaaat? -Springfield Armory was shutdown. Whaaat?!

[@fastrider600]

The current Springfield is just an importer. Grew up 30 minutes away back when they still made custom deer rifles.

[@andrewallason4530]

I’m of the opinion that they should not have been allowed to use a name of a previous company. That goes for Henry, and several others as well.

[@joshualandry3160]

Another good thing to mention is that there have been quality complaints about their products, specifically the M1A. I recently received one that I was expecting to need a fair amount of work. Out of the box the bedding was excellent and the fit of the parts is actually really good. So from my subjective experience they seem to be improving their past issues.

[@darnit1944]

When firing the M14 in full auto, the first hits an enemy personnel, the second hits the enemy on the tree, the third shot misses, and the 4th hits an enemy aircraft. Edit: Can't believe how many people missed the joke

[@khoinguyenphamtrong4637]

5th shot hits ISS

[@REDNDEAD]

The 6th shot somehow hits your head.

[@twistedyogert]

​@@khoinguyenphamtrong4637 ISS didn't exist until 1998 and didn't see crewed flight until 2001.

[@derekhenschel3191]

​@@twistedyogerta satellite then

[@iancorrigan1174]

​@@twistedyogertyou must be a very fun person at cocktail parties

[@rockystewart3297]

I started Basic Training in November of 1969 at Ft. Benning (A-10-1 Sand Hill) & we were some of the last troops to train with the M-14 as the new issue M16's were going straight to Viet Nam. We had one Platoon Leader who was not particularly well-liked & he was present when we were at the range using full-auto fire. The RO's had loaded too many magazines for that day & told the Officers they were welcome to fire off the excess. If you have experience firing sustained AW fire, you'll remember the barrel becomes insanely hot with very pretty blue-black iridescent lines dancing along the barrel. Lt. R. was anxious to take up their offer but had no rifle. I had just finished firing my last magazine when he appeared & yelled "Gimme that rifle" & proceeded to yank it from my hands by the barrel. His reaction was pretty much instantaneous with a very loud scream. I've no idea how long it took his hand to heal but it was definitely one of my most rewarding days of Basic.🤣

[@stevetheduck1425]

I burnt my arm on the barrel of an L7 Bren on the range, after only 30 shots, and not fired rapidly. The mark lasted for years, and I've not burnt myself since.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Yeah. They'll ALL do that. There was a guy in my Jr. ROTC unit who did that. We would spend Spring Break on Maneuvers - and that Spring had been bused to Fort Irvin where we fired M14's on the range there. This guy did the same thing. Any of them will do that. That's the reason they all have those hand guards. You touch any of those barrels after they've fired a few rounds and - yes - you can burn the shit out of yourself. .

[@mbr5742]

Better than a certain german navy officer who did not listen before firing an MG3 and put his hand UNDER the gun acting as a human brass catcher

[@rockystewart3297]

@@mbr5742 Looking back at the actions of some officers, you had to wonder HOW in the hell did they ever get a commission.

[@mbr5742]

@@rockystewart3297 Maybe there is a secret purchase system...

[@Marvinwalker-ud3yo]

In Vietnam I drove a truck, often alone, and was issued the M14 which I loved bc of its range and accuracy. Although I had qualified wirh the Garand, Carbine, M16, BAR, M60 and with hand guns ,I still preferred the trustworthy M14. I loved it so much I purchased one at a military surplus, fitted it with a Bushnell 3X9 power scope and 45 years later I can still hit a dinner plate at 450 yards consistently.

[@scotscotty8075]

Interesting, since military issue M-14's have never been sold as surplus.

[@richardpeoples8019]

​@@scotscotty8075wrong

[@scotscotty8075]

@@richardpeoples8019 explain.

[@scotscotty8075]

Ok I know there NFA's out there and some rewelds, your use of the word surplus threw me.

[@TheCrusher72]

"often alone," NOPE.

[@bryanvaughn9982]

I'm a manufacturing engineer and you did a really good job of describing how difficult it actually is to manufacture something complicated like a rifle.

[@Edgy01]

I have a tremendous respect for manufacturing engineers. You’re the guys that actually get the stuff to work.

[@everettrhay4855]

The engineers dream it up, the programmers code to the model. The Machinist makes it a reality.

[@pb68slab18]

@@everettrhay4855 Toolmakers! Because engineers need heroes too!

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

@@everettrhay4855 These days, programmers code the machines too to be fair.

[@BC-wj8fx]

@@everettrhay4855 You don't know engineers then. You literally have to be able to design, code, and machine to be qualified as a mechanical engineer these days. Not just do it, but understand everything behind it too.

[@cyrusfreeman9972]

I have to say, the M 14 is absolutely not a forgotten weapon, but this is one of the most fascinating videos from this channel I have seen in a long time… And that is an incredibly high bar to clear. Thank you very much Ian, I'm probably going to rewatch this several times this week.

[@pigdroppings]

The accuracy of the M-14 meant nothing....as the draftees couldn't hit anything, no matter what rifle you gave them...I was one of those couch potatos back in 1966.

[@gutfinski]

The bottom line is they were never going to turn a 8+ pound service rifle into a BAR simply by adding a 20 round magazine and selective fire.

[@uzivatel56]

Yes, the demands were impossible to meet. But still, just as a service rifle, it was kinda shit, wasn't it?

[@spvillano]

Well, it started out at 9 pounds unloaded, almost 11 pounds loaded and yeah, way too light to remain on target. For crying out loud, the M50 weighed in at 23 pounds, the M240 at 29 pounds. That mass kept the weapon in the general direction of the target. Might've as well have a 5 pound version of Ma Deuce!

[@anfrac3700]

Or a replacement of the Thompson submachine gun on the basis of full-auto firing. The guys running the trials were deluded.

[@gutfinski]

@@uzivatel56 Not necessarily. With proper barrel bedding the accuracy was excellent. Four different manufacturers, US Arsenal at Springfield, Harrington and Richardson, TRW, and Winchester produced differing qualities of manufacturing. Proof of the pudding was that later modifications, such as the M21, produced a highly accurate and excellent Service Rifle.

[@jeffreyhutchins6527]

@@uzivatel56 Fun fact the M14 is still in service to this day. just not as an MBR

[@headlightbandit8618]

My dad was in the Marine Corps. He did his basic at Pendleton, and till the day he passed, he spoke well of the M14.

[@terryfox5666]

Me too. Liked it better than the Mattel M-16 we got in nam.

[@ashesanderson2974]

The M14 was beautiful and could out compete the short distance M16 in most other then Jungle combat and dense tropical climates.

[@PostalWorker14]

@@terryfox5666Marines snipers still use M14

[@eedwardgrey2]

" I don't want no teenage queen, I just want my M14"

[@PostalWorker14]

@@terryfox5666 US knew Vietnam unwinnabe at least with the tactics they used Pentagon Papers proved it

[@Ed-ig7fj]

I wasn't in Vietnam, but two of my buddies who were there had M-14s for at least some of their time in country. They both loved it. They felt that it was more reliable than the M-16 (till the Army got the ammo sorted out). They also liked the heavier bullet. One guy said that if a VC was hiding behind some logs or something, you could just start chipping away at the cover, and pretty soon it was gone, and so was Charlie. The other guy just said, "When you hit somebody with it, they die." God bless them both. --Old Guy

[@Privat2840]

I have never heard the M14 called a failed program and the US Army still uses versions of the M14 today. Their are no issues I know of, just the advantages or disadvantages found when comparing rifles, calibers weight and magazine capacities. the US defense department chose lighter weigh rifle with higher rounds per pound than the M14.

[@gitss7367]

@@Privat2840 Yes Me either, grew up around lots of Vietnam vets including my father. All loved the 1911 and M14 while none liked the M16. From what I heard I would have guessed it was the most successful rifle the US used.

[@beestoe993]

It seems to me that the m14 was considered superior to the m16 until about 10 years ago. Isn't revisionary history special?

[@wockawocka5293]

@beestoe993 - Thats actually not the case. The Army tested the M14, AR-15 and AK-47 in a reliability test in the 1960's. The AR actually won. But that wasn't the result the Army wanted so that report was hush hush. But it can still be looked up. So many myths such as the AK being so "indestructible", the AR being "unreliable", etc. What actually happened to the early M-16 in Veitnam was sabatoge by people with the mindset that U.S. rifles should still use full power cartridges. Nothing against the M14, but once the sabatoge induced problems were fixed in the AR, it has proven to be one of the most reliable rifles ever made. But myths will always persist. Also, watch InRange's mud test series and see how the M14 does in mud. And see how the AR does.

[@beestoe993]

@@wockawocka5293 It's only natural that the bureaucrats pushing the cheaper to manufacture rifles would conjure up a glowing report. I'm talking about popularity among the men in the field that actually used them. Some of them have already left their comments.

[@sergiom9958]

Remember guys; while the US MoD rejected the AR10 or the FAL under the promise or building M14 from old M1 Garand and turned out not to be abble to do so... a peruvian guy named Erquiaga just did it on his own appartment creating the EM62.

[@muddyhotdog4103]

So did the Italians with the bm59

[@sergiom9958]

@@muddyhotdog4103 Im not 100% sure they re used M1 Garands or make brand new parts. But if they made the BM59 from existing Garands that makes them even greater.

[@FireGoliath]

Did you just call the DoD the MoD? :-)

[@tomaspabon2484]

The proud tradition of random dudes in sheds outdoing major gun companies is one of the reason i love guns so much

[@bartb7790]

@@sergiom9958 They also made it from old M1 Garands. I own a BM59 made from a Springfield M1 Garand. The Springfield name is still present at the heel of the receiver, its original serialnumbers is X't out and a new number is put on.

[@rickcentore2801]

I was in the Marine Corps from 1963 to 1967. When we were being issued our M-14s in boot camp, an armorer was checking the alignment of the flash suppressor. As I remember it 61 years later, he dropped a rod of some kind down the barrel. When it didn't go in far enough, he whacked the end of the rifle on a table leg or something. That aligned it enough for the rod to drop in all the way and he handed it to me. I thought that if it took that little to realign it, it would take very little to screw it up again.

[@jessiepinkman7736]

If the flash suppresor in your way just keep firing, won't be in your way for long lol

[@Charley-q3f]

A trained armorer would us a flash suppressor alignment tool. It slides down the flash suppressor then if misaligned you loosen the screw holding the suppressor on till it slips in then tighten it USMC Vietnam 68-70

[@MiltonFindley]

@@jessiepinkman7736 - exactly, the next round fired will remove it about 90 feet downrange.

[@trinity0844]

@@Charley-q3f Marine Corps, December 68 to March 72, I loved my M-14, as soon as I was deployed to Khe Sanh I was issued a MATELL TOY! I hated that POS!

[@trinity0844]

That should have been MATTEL, who cares, it was still a toy rifle/still is.

[@eagleair15c]

For being a “failed service weapon” I sure have a hard time finding anyone that hasn’t fallen in love with this rifle. It’s beautiful.

[@FrankBonessa]

AMEN BROTHER.

[@lawrencebeck1144]

yep, when given a choice in Vietnam my choice was the M14. Simple, I could trust it to do it's job rain, shine, sand, mud it just worked day in day out.

[@georgewhitworth9742]

Plenty of us, my guy.

[@nobleherring3059]

I love the SKS and the old leverguns, too. But that don't mean I wanna walk into a combat theatre with 'em!

[@GrumpyGenXGramps]

Beautiful but handles like SHlT!

[@sue08401]

My brother swore by the M14. He was a flight engineer during his 2 tours in Vietnam and used it in a few firefights. One plus never mentioned is it used the same ammo as the M60, and any flight crew had boxes of 7.62 ammo.

[@richardgreen4567]

A very beautiful weapon, I served in United States Marine Corps in the early 70s, Boot Camp the 14 was our weapon! It’s easy to take apart, easy to put together. if I had my way hell I’ll get 12 of them if I can afford it with ammunition, give one to each of my grandkids. I know they would have a lot of fun firing that weapon, you got some guys will say well the AR 15 is better damn 16 is better because you can put all kind of stuff on it. I’m old school. With me an M1 14 800 m that is your ass . And with the scope, I could find tune it even better.

[@drcovell]

Amen! I missed my chance to buy a scoped civilian version with a match barrel in the 1990s. Didn’t have the $700-which was half of my quarterly tuition at UCLA. (You know, the “University of Communists in LA.) Been kicking myself ever since. Although I DID buy an M1 in 2010, to go with the .45 ACP that my BIL (After retiring from the USA Special Forces--RIP CIL. Bill Lutz). After replacing the barrel, even after 60, I can still shoot 6” groups at 200 and hit steel at 400-it’s the “Reach out and touch someone” part of my collection. 😉

[@msg63bretired82]

While doable, still a lot of work stripping it from the links 👍🏼

[@AwosAtis]

@@richardgreen4567 This page is filled with so much misinformation. Springfield Armory still manufactures a civilian version of the M14 in Geneseo, Illinois designated as the M1A. It is the original M14 design without the selector switch.

[@altblechasyl_cs2093]

​@@AwosAtisNope... SA in Geneso IL only uses the old name. THE Springfield Armory US Army weapon plant in MA was shut down in 1968.

[@lancerevell5979]

I was on my Navy ship's Security/Guard Force, early 1980s. Our armory had the M-14 rifles, semi-auto only. On a security alert, the first five team members showing up at the armory got armed and dispatched to specific locations. Fifth guy got the M-14. I alway arrived quickly as my ET office was close. I held back until I was Number Five. First two responders got the .45 Colt M1911A1 and two magazines, next two got the Rem 870 12 gauge with 12 shells in a pouch, the M-14 guy got three 20 round magazines. FIREPOWER! 😅 Normal Roving Patrol watch got the .45 pistol. We also used the M-14 with cup style grenade launcher for use in line throwing when unrepping with another ship. My ET/EW shop handled the comm line between ships. A big rubber "bullet" carried the light line over, which was then attached to the comm line.

[@kirk2767]

I remember in a single mooring, where the initial line-throwing M-14 broke its firing-pin. They replaced it, shot a line over, only to have the rubber thing smash someone's windshield.

[@lesliepaulkovacs6442]

I served in the US Navy from 1976-1986, in the Submarine Service. Every Boat I was on had M-14s, Remington 870 Shotguns, and 1911s.

[@cbozant3428]

We had 2 full auto on Stethem in 2005.

[@snagglesmagoo2750]

Our topside rovers always had the M-14. Pretty much everyone had to be qualifed to carry it and the 1911. Our security force had M-14, Remington 870, 1911 and then added Beretta M9 and M-4 during my last deployment. A few of the GMs even got to train on the Stinger, which we used during the Gulf War and picket duty for years afterwards.

[@spvillano]

@@kirk2767 well, it's a Navy ship, they've likely had spares. Hell, the USS New Jersey just recently found spare windshields squirreled away aboard ship.

[@ypaulbrown]

Thank You so much Ian, your programs are always spot on,,,,,,cheers from Florida, Paul

[@roberthagedorn290]

Thank you for this video. It brought back memories. My basic training company at Fort Knox was one of the last companies at that post to use the M14 for recruit training from January through March 1965. The selective mechanism was removed on our weapons so we were unable to choose fully automatic. A sergeant demonstrated the weapon on fully automatic one time for us. I had an interesting experience at Fort Knox I have never understood. Our company went out to the range at the end of our training in March. Apparently we were just supposed to waste ammunition by firing into the dirt when a sergeant yelled "FIRE!" I somehow got the impression I was supposed to fire at pop-up targets and was looking forward to doing this exercise. But since I didn't see anything to shoot at, I didn't shoot. Afterwards when I turned in my fully loaded 20 round magazine instead of an empty one a lot of people became very excited and started screaming at me. Later, a loud-mouthed lieutenant from our company accompanied me back to the range with a different company. He yelled "FIRE!" into my ear at the appropriate times and that time I emptied my magazine into the distant dirt. I still think it was a waste of ammunition.

[@jarvy251]

This happens sometimes. If a unit doesn't use up their all thier ammunition, then some clerk will decide they have too much of it and give them less in the future.

[@roberthagedorn290]

@@jarvy251 Thank you for the explanation. Much appreciated.

[@timothyshupe7589]

I took basic in August & September of 1969 at Ft. Knox and all we had was the m14.

[@alexphelps7042]

That is Modus Operandi for government work. I once had to help procure 7000 steel fire pits for the state environmental protection agency because it was the only park related thing we could even remotely justify & get ordered before the budget cuts. There was a switch in governance that year to a party less concerned with environmental protection and sure enough every department that didn’t use %100 of the grant money lost it.

[@racoming1035]

Ah......The shoulder thing that goes up. Truly a weapon of war.

[@jonnybravo3606]

😂

[@EDKguy]

Yeah, that essentially makes it a bump stop which is automatic and also is made of gas. I heard all about it on CSPAN 🤭

[@neutronalchemist3241]

Unfortunately, it's completely useless without a bipod (it's made to suspend the rifle between the bipod and the shoulder, without tiring the arm).

[@thatguyoverthere9634]

​@@neutronalchemist3241 not true, resing the front of the stock on on some sort of cover like sandbags, a wall, or a log would make it useful. Albeit it's not as useful as using a bipod but for waiting for an ambush or defending a checkpoint it would work perfectly fine

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

What he left out - was the two holes in the stock you can stick a cleaning tool in. Same as the M1 Garand. Handy way of carrying your cleaning kit. .

[@Mjdeben]

The only transferable machine gun that nobody actually wants to fire in full auto. Thanks for going back to the long format too.

[@jamallabarge2665]

It's not bad..... but it's not fun. I went to a rental to shoot one. Spectators said, "You were wrestling with that thing!"

[@marks1638]

We (Air Force Small Arms Unit) had some full auto M14A1's in the armory left over from a project in the 1960's. Don't know why the Air Force had them as we only used the semi-auto version for sniping, SMUD (standoff munitions detonation) rifles, and competition. We took a couple out to the range and tried the full auto mode. Holy Cow, whoever came up with that concept at the Army Arsenal must have been issuing them to Schwarzenegger and Stallone for use. We couldn't hit squat at 100 yards in full auto. I guess it would great for human wave attacks, but then you'd have an overheated barrel and cookoffs. Not a well thought out concept.

[@pb68slab18]

Most were issued without the switch, but with a selector-lock installed. I fired a few while in the Navy. I had a chance to purchase an amnesty-registered Winchester M-14 in excellent condition for $5000 back in 1985 but couldn't afford it.😥 And we all know what happened in 1986! 😭

[@rsilvers129]

I have two of them and it’s fine. The G3 is worse.

[@davidlefranc6240]

Full auto on close quarter fight i guess.

[@tomyorke3412]

I Still love the "WHHAAAA!" sound you made when you fired that thing on full auto haha.

[@jf6647]

It shoots small warios?

[@GleichUmDieEcke]

If there's one thing I've learned from 40K orks, it's that screaming while shooting makes da boolets shootier.

[@Cats-TM]

Ian is the best of gun ninjas.

[@AshleyPomeroy]

That was his war face.

[@Klemeq]

@@jf6647 kzbin.info/www/bejne/jHKkc4CsosZ6jbMsi=p3uIhJc5WML-ui3-

[@TheGhostOfPatrickHenry]

Having fired an M16 and an M14 side by side, let me tell you, the recoil on an M14 is no joke. There's nothing to grab to help yank through the muzzle climb. I'd already had a decent amount of time behind machine guns and it completely caught me off guard. My first round hit the target, second hit and third hit the top of the berm, 4th, 5th, and 6th went into the woods, 7th and 8th went into the sky towards I95 a few miles out. Ian describes it correctly as "graying out your world". When you properly stance and lean into the recoil to control it, all you can focus on is riding that sucker as tight as you can and keeping your impacts on target.

[@boosuedon]

The M14 is a military "Battle Rifle", not a toy and as such required training to learn how to operate it. To learn how to fire the M14 in FULL AUTO mode you must be trained how to fire a B.A.R.. It is NOT a machine gun but with proper training can be just as effective as a German MG42.

[@TheGhostOfPatrickHenry]

@@boosuedon are you high? I've fired both a REAL M14 and an MG42. They're not even the same category of weapon, but the MG42 is clearly the most effective at the whole "machine gun" thing. They are still fielding derivatives of an 80yo machinegun, TODAY, versus the M14 being phased out of everything except extremely limited use as a marksman's rifle in select units.

[@TheGhostOfPatrickHenry]

@@boosuedon the only thing extra it required out of me was leaning a little harder into it when firing. I've got like 30k rounds behind machineguns, most of them either beltfed stationary weapons, or intermediate cartridge weapons. Pairing .308 with a high cyclic rate, 6-7lb rifle was retarded on the part of the US military. If you aren't accustomed to the extreme recoil, it will completely rock your world. Ian said it best with "it will gray out your world", because all you can focus is death gripping the rifle hard enough to keep it on target.

[@boosuedon]

@@TheGhostOfPatrickHenry No, not high, just an old Marine that was properly trained on the damn rifle! Buddy, I don't think you know what the hell you are talking about! It would seem you are all mouth. Semper fi!

[@Mathadar]

There are some variants of the M-14 that had a front grip, that is by far my favorite, especially with a bipolar as well.

[@IrishWeegee]

The fact that the M14 was the shortest career as the main military rifle shocked me because I always remembered seeing it used for Honor Guard duties for so long. They must have kept it because that polished wood looks incredible for the procedures.

[@egoalter1276]

Yeah, post aoviet coumtries still regularly use SKSes/SVTs for parades. Full length rifles with wooden furniture just look sexier.

[@Fred70115]

That’s how I used it. Heavy piece of crap. See my comment about blanks jamming.

[@mbr5742]

The West German Army still used Mauser 98K for the ceremonial job. The 98K was not used by any other Bundeswehr unit ever

[@uzivatel56]

M14 is the very last main U.S. rifle, that can do the traditional "prussian style" rifle drills. You can't do that stuff with M16. It is essentially irreplaceble in that niche role.

[@uku4171]

​@@egoalter1276In Estonia we actually use the M14 as a ceremonial rifle.

[@BSKustomz]

"It has a 20 round box magazine..." wow that insertion was really smooth for an... *fade starts* ah there it is

[@blueorb7030]

People complain about ak maglock, but there's no other gun that's worse for it than the m14/m1a

[@jamallabarge2665]

It's tricky.... kind of like an AK only a little tighter. Once it's in, it's in. Unlike the klunky M16 stuff 'n pray mag well.

[@blueorb7030]

@@jamallabarge2665 it's much heavier than an Ak, are you kidding? You're nosing in against a spring, not a solid peice of steel. It's one swift motion, gross movement on an Ak. M1A is negotiations between two sprung latches. As for the AR platform, it takes less than half a second to smack the poodles out of an AR magazine and try to wiggle it out. On original M16 mags or modern polymer ones, by the time you'd damage the mag by stuffing it in too hard you'd break something in your hand.

[@georgewhitworth9742]

@@jamallabarge2665Your irrational M14 love is blinding your judgement.

[@jamallabarge2665]

@@georgewhitworth9742 "Your irrational M14 love is blinding your judgement." In matters of taste there can be no dispute - Roman saying.

[@jonesclantd]

Thank you for this, Ian. This discussion is long overdue with histrionic bashing of the M14 design. While the gun is not a revolutionary leap forward, the essence of the design is a fundamentally good service rifle. The crux of the M14's problems was that the post-WWII era gutted the arms industry and then when the design was finally matured (quite late) by Springfield Armory and the Technical Data Package was ready to license out, none of these bidders were serious about building the rifles correctly. The tale of this rifle's problems is less a tale about the aspects of the rifle itself as it is a tale about the immense failure in factory production of guns and lax quality inspection standards after a severe contraction of the arms industry post-WWII. If it wasn't the M14, it was actually the FAL that would have been doomed to be ruined by Winchester's horrible quality control and lapses in good production management.

[@moss8448]

Back in `66 we trained with it & was issued one in `67 across the pond, always thought to myself that it was an everymans BAR and Ian pointed that out in his discussion.

[@MA-wq2ih]

TRW (Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge) built M14s that were almost legendary for their quality, using aerospace machine processes...but they lost their asses on the contract.

[@coppertopv365]

M14 was being made at the time anti-war rhetoric was gaining steam, some were anti war from the Korean conflic or didnt want to see America leave korea an then engage in Vietnam hostiles. Armalite Rifle manufacturing had a lot to gain if M14 failed. So it is in my opinion, and its very Possible, there could have been some sabotage, or "AR manufacturing Industrial" M14 tampering.

[@sorashirogami1729]

​@@coppertopv365 The opposite happened. Ordnance group switched out the gunpowder spec for the M16 between testing and production, using a different type of powder that burns differently and leaves heavy fouling in the gas system, which contributed to thousands of deaths among M16 equipped troops in Vietnam. So no, the M14 was not sabotaged by the M16 proponents, the M16 was sabotaged by M14 proponents.

[@scottytoohotty7617]

Weird. My dad was on the shooting team in the Army during Vietnam. His rifle was an M14 and he sang it's praises til he passed away.

[@gomerromer7708]

I trained with the M-14 and I still sing its praises also. By the time I got to Vietnam I was a clerk on the LZ and used an M16 on perimeter guard. The M14 was not good for lugging in rice paddies, but in Korea or Germany I would have preferred an M-14 by a long way.

[@jamessebela3236]

@@scottytoohotty7617 I loved m14 for shooting but the chrome would peel out. I had one in boot camp and a piece of chrome about 1/8 inch diameter chipped out. I knew what it was but the drill instructor insisted I had a filthy rifle. So after he knocked me around I had to clean it or get beaned again. I put wad of cloth in the barrel and rammed it through. It pushed all the chrome out.🤣 The drill instructor said I destroy government property. I told him all the chrome came out. He said there’s no chrome on these barrels. I pulled a Kleenex with the chrome out my pocket and said what’s this. Non of the drill instructors knew anything about it. Still shot expert with that rifle.

[@TimHunold]

My dad grabbed one at Khe Sahn during Tet and rolled around with it. He loved it. I bought him a vintage one years ago, still has it.

[@privatgomer8203]

best battle rifle ever produced anyone who says different isn't a rifleman

[@ewelinanajgebauer8862]

​@@privatgomer8203The AK was/is better. There's a reason the M16 replaced the M14, even though both aren't guns i like :D.

[@rogergadley9965]

I’m a Marine Corps combat veteran and when I started out we were still using the M14. I loved the M14. It was a solid, substantial , very rugged confidence inspiring weapon. When you fired the thing, it kicked into your soldier decisively. I loved it, but unlike many, I could control it well with “auto” selected. What I didn’t love about the M14 was carrying an 11 pound (fully loaded magazine and sling rifle on long patrols in 110 to 120 degree temperatures. That made me love the 9 pound (with fully loaded magazine) M16. Plus, I carried only two extra magazines with the M14, but I could carry a full bandolier or two of 5.56 ammo with no problem.

[@TheRealCFF]

You hit the nail on the head about the M14.

[@wesstubbs3472]

This the AK47

[@PappyGunn]

I did my basic with the FN. I loved the 7.62. We switched over to M4s. Felt like a varmit rifle for sissies. I tried the M-14 later on and I loved it too except for carrying the bloody thing and the ammo. But still, very solid. And it didn't have a gas system that shot all the gas back into the chamber for you to clean later or a stupid little cotter pin. I found it a lotmore grunt friendly than the M4.

[@rockitsurjon8629]

Respect for the M14. I loved being handed one from The Armory on my ship, for drills and...non drills. The GMs would match the parts from select M14s and would have a few completely dialed in with just iron sites and dang, those weapons were accurate.

[@dejavu666wampas9]

@@rockitsurjon8629- In 1969, my 17 year old ass put 10/10 rounds in an 18 inch bullseye at 500 yards, with iron sights. I loved my M-14. I now have the M1a. Love it also. Just yesterday put 5/5 in a 9 inch bullseye at 200 yards, iron sights, and 72 year old eyes. Plus, for the gun grabbing crowd, it isn’t all black and scary looking.👍

[@reb1050]

Spending New Years Day, 1971, at Marine boot camp at San Diego, we were issued the M14. At the rifle range, I gained appreciation for the rifle. I found it reliable and accurate. Much more so than I found the M16 I was issued later. What it boils down to, many find the M14 to be a fantastic rifle, while others don't. But because of my experience with the M14, the day I retired, I celebrated by buying myself a Springfield M1A and have never regretted it.

[@SFCRambo60]

1969 San Diego MCRD 3174 Vietnam 72-73 loved my M-14 hated the M-16, saw to manny barrels were bent. The butt would break off if you hit the ground to hard. It like to shove 2 rounds into the chamber and may go off and pepper your face.

[@reb1050]

@@SFCRambo60 My M-16 had a problem of the spent casing lodging itself up into the groove of the charging handle. Semi-auto wasn't too bad. Full auto, you had about 3 shots and that was it.

[@tpoz48]

I also found the M-14 an accurate, reliable rifle, which I qualified with in basic. It didn't take long to find the M-16, a less reliable weapon in Vietnam.

[@concernedamerican9209]

I also loved my M14 enough that I saved like crazy until I could afford the Springfield Armory "National Match Grade" M1A and just recently purchased a synthetic "Loaded" from Springfield Armory and really from the bench, if I do my part both are extremely accurate with my hand loads using the now discontinued IMR 4064! I'm looking at a couple replacement powder to load behind the 147-150 FMJ's that I buy.

[@davidluck1678]

ditto. M1A all the way.

[@ericcsuf]

Basic at Fort Ord in 1962, we all used M1's. I barely qualified with it. A year later, as an instructor in the Signal School at Fort Monmouth, I had to qualify with an M14. I had never fired anything but that M1 in Basic. I qualified Expert with the M14 at Fort Dix. A year after that, I again qualified Expert with the M14. The only two times I had ever fired the M14, I qualified Expert and I could barely hit the target with an M1. Excellent video. I have no interest in guns to be honest, but I'm a mechanical engineer and appreciate mechanisms and well-presented videos. This video satisfied both. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[@drcovell]

Your M1 probably had a bad barrel. I bought one and couldn’t hit the black at all at 200. At 200, with no wind, it should hardly need any adjustment, as it shoots pretty much flat at that range if you use proper rounds. I bought an “as new” GI replacement on eBay and had my gunsmith install and headspace it properly. Now, at 60+, I can shoot consistent 6” groups at 200 and ring a steel plate at 400.😉

[@boondocker7964]

If you can fire well with either the M-1 or the M-14, you can easily fire either weapon with little problem, I did, no problemo.

[@frederickking1660]

Some of those m1s were really poor shooters. Worn out and not that great when new.

[@mareshie]

If you were still shooting an M-1 Garand in 1962 you can bet that the WWII vintage weapon was a smooth bore.

[@garyoconnordbaairrepair7775]

My father was Sergeant in charge of all Rifle, Pistol and Artillery ranges on Camp Pendelton. From June 1965 to June 1968. I got to fire everything the USMC had at that time. I liked the M1 and M14. In the M1? I really liked the M1 Carbine. I liked the M14 better than the M16.

[@powerpace1]

I fired every model of weapons at Lakehurst Naval Airstation Armory in 1967. Except the ceremonial muskets. USMC 1967-1975

[@ahashdahnagila6884]

I almost bought an M1 carbine in 1962, at a weapons surplus shop. There were 2 or 3 of those used M1 carbines: each having quite a story to tell (if they could talk!) I didn't have the $35.00 to buy the one I wanted...😢

[@duelist1954]

Great video…lots I did not know. The M14 was the rifle I was issued in ROTC in the early 1970s, and I loved it…still do. During the fighting in Iraq, when I was the head of Maritime Weapons Systems support, the Seal Teams had us bring back the M14 because the 5.56 rounds wouldn’t penetrate cinder block walls. We changed the stocks to Kevlar, and the teams were pretty happy with them.

[@douglass56]

In the navy base shooting team I enjoyed my fiberglass stock.

[@frakismaximus3052]

"ROTC special forces"

[@maddogs1989]

​@@frakismaximus3052thank God I'm not the only one that saw that.

[@jessiepinkman7736]

That's awesome duelist i could read about these weapon stories all day!

[@TheCrusher72]

SUURE you did. 5.56 goes right through crappy Haji bricks. I was with SEALs, etc. on and off for seven years in OIF and OEF and the only M14 I saw fielded was with the 82nd (they hated it).

[@stevewesley8187]

Went through Army Basic at Fort Benning in spring of 1969 using M14 . Having never fired any weapon other than a Daisy BB gun , I shot Expert and loved the M14 . A year later in VietNam I was oriented with the M16 and was surprised at the light weight .

[@Bob_Adkins]

Same here, I trained in basic with the m14, but trained in AIT with the M16 and carried the M16 in VN. We had a pair of snipers in our platoon that carried M14s, and they looked miserable all the time humping the bulky, heavy rifles and ammo.

[@tomn8204]

The title of this video is horribly misleading. A properly manufactured M14 with quality ammo is an outstanding rifle.

[@immikeurnot]

@@tomn8204 No. A high quality M14 is extremely expensive, very finnicky and still not terribly good held against rifles of today.

[@classifiedad1]

@@tomn8204 "Properly manufactured M14 with quality ammo" See that was the problem, as mentioned in the video. Plenty were NOT properly made and it took awhile to get it fixed. By then, the AR-15 was a thing, and the rest is history. I would say the title is fairly accurate in that greatest failing of the M14 was the concept since it was trying to be four very different guns in one. If seen purely as a replacement to the M1 Garand, it would certainly be considered a better weapon. But it wasn't, it was trying to be a light machine gun, battle rifle, carbine, and submachine gun, all at once. It was far too lightly built to replace the BAR, and too long, heavy, and uncontrollable to replace the M1 Carbine and M3 Grease Gun. The BAR was more practically replaced by the M60. The M1 Carbine would be replaced by the M16, which also replaced the M14. The Grease Gun would only really be replaced in the 90's with the M4 Carbine, which is really an M16 with a shorter barrel and telescoping stock.

[@joshualandry3160]

I think another really important thing to discuss when talking about the M-14 is Robert McNamara. He was a big fan of forcing military services to buy cheaper generalist items rather than more expensive and more capable systems. Probably the most famous example of his interference was trying to force the Navy to adopt the F-111 as an interceptor despite it being totally unsuited to the role. It seems he had a big hand in forcing the services to switch to the M-16 over the M-14.

[@blueduck9409]

Ya the M14 was old macs rifle. He wasted an insane amount of money on the rifle during development, but managed to turn out a decent battle rifle.

[@HyBr1dRaNg3r]

Isn’t it funny how politicians think they know what’s best for the military?

[@earllamerica9348]

Wasn’t he also responsible for the F-4 being adopted by the USAF?

[@joshualandry3160]

@@earllamerica9348 I think so. He had a hand in all the Vietnam procurement, although I am not particularly failure with that process.

[@LokiOdinson-fz8ps]

@@earllamerica9348 he was also the idiot that thought the F-111 would replace every fighter and attack bird in service.

[@dgkcpa1]

What went wrong was the army's belief that they could replace the BAR, Thompson, M1 Garand, M1 & M2 Carbine, Grease gun, etc, etc, etc. with a single weapon that could do it all. Sounded like a good idea at the time,.

[@rickn8or]

Maybe if they hadn't tried to do it with one caliber...

[@kommandantvhs4994]

My dad thought it was a great replacement for the BAR and the M1 Garand.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

The M16 was developed 5 years after the M14, only 2 after its adoption. And did exactly that.

[@rickn8or]

And it was, all the way up to the first time some trooper fired the M-14 full-auto.

[@Soulessdeeds]

During my 2nd tour of Iraq. My unit was issued some M14s. Seems the Army recognized that most units didn't have designated marksman rifles to deal with more long ranged engagements or counter sniper operations. So the M14s were the answer. Got to shoot it in Kuwait. They were in excellent condition and obviously came out of Army weapons storage. To my knowledge my units soldiers who were assigned these never had to use them in combat. It was a better to have and never use than not have and need it situation I suppose. I was just happy I had a brand new M4 carbine with new optics. I was a happy camper weapon wise.

[@blueduck9409]

I never heard any complaints about the M14 from the units that carried them in the field. Most people were happy to have the firepower at long distance. A guy that knew how tp use it and bring it into play quickly became the grim reaper.

[@LRK-GT]

IIRC The 'Sandbox' reintroduced combat scenarios not much thought of since Lawrence of Arabia. >100-300yard shots over/up mixed terrain, became a necessity (again). Makes sense to pull M14s out of mothballs, v. the cost of issuing New Manufacture AR-10 derivatives (which IIRC, were *also* being introduced in more specialty roles) IMO, the 'experiences' in the mid-east influenced the procurement of the XM5/7's 6.8x51mm. Time will tell if that was a mistake...

[@petehaack5228]

I saw some folks carrying them while we were in a mess halll in Iraq, but they all seemed to be support troops. A friend and I asked them about it when we saw them, but they just started bitching about having to carry them, and we got so annoyed that we never got the rest of the story. If I remember right, they were just straight M14's, wooden stocks, no optics, or anything special. I didn't think to look if they were select fire at the time. My friend told them that he wished he could trade with them, lol.

[@bobcollard11]

Navy SeaBee here, combat training in Camp Pendelton, Expert marksman with a M14. Notice your selector switch, I had one as an automatic rifleman in a fire team. Nine pound rifle, hardly kicked at all and loved the rotary bolt, locked up like a bolt action. Auto fire manageable with firing three rounds at a time. Viet Nam Vet, two tours. Chu Lai and Danang.

[@JAMES-gn6ul]

😢

[@Jimmy.O.]

Hoorah! 💪🇺🇸

[@Corristo89]

With 3 round bursts it sounds controllable. Full-auto? Nope. The whole idea that a rifle should also be a machine gun is just baffling. That's like wanting your car to be a a pick-up truck, ice cream van and a hypercar at the same time.

[@bobcollard11]

@@Corristo89 Actually it is faster than an M60 in rounds per minute, but, that is senseless. It was not designed for that kind of use, you cannot switch out the barrel like and M60.

[@y0Milan]

@@Corristo89 not really true, volume of automatic fire is hugely important - the russians (and ukranians) are great at that.

[@BrowncoatProductions]

19:07 Ian finds a second way to get Garand thumb.

[@K.D.R_]

the so-called "M14 thumb".

[@jimlong20]

in the marines we call it an "m1" thumb

[@not-a-raccoon]

He can get Flannel Daddy two different ways??

[@KH-rt3ef]

@jimlong20 Thompson M1 thumb is a special kind of battle scar.

[@taproom113]

@@not-a-raccoon LMAO! Well played, Sir ... 🤣 ^v^

[@od1452]

While in the Army I found an report about the development of the M1. Around 1936 the Army Infantry Board wanted a new modern rifle. This is important... As the Primary End User... the Infantry Board would get to write the requirements for the Rifle and oversee its development .. ( You wouldn't expect an Army cook the write out the requirements for a fighterjet.) But one of the problems with the system of developement , you can and often get Officers that have power and influence like Artillerymen or engineers that see things differently. The Infantry Board in 1936 did its homework .. it found that an Infantryman needed a smaller, lighter at least semi auto rifle. They thought it would be esentually a lighter version of a 1919 BAR in a smaller caliber. ( they actually wanted an M16 but it wasn't made then obviously) Because ( to simplify the story) of the many powerfull but diferent ideas.. the Infantryboard had to settle for the M1. This is kind of what happened to the m 14. It is Ironic that the Infantry board finally got its wish with the M16 from the actions of the Air Force. The story is way to complicated to fit into here, but that is the basic story. I used the M14 for my first 3 years in the Army. I shot well with it. The Army went to shilloite targets as the old standard targets were out of favor as it was thought they had little to do with combat. I thought it was a good rifle but it was a little too heavy. Remember you have to carry Ammo and other stuff. I was never a fan of the m16 but I did appreciate many of its attributes. I preferred the Springfields but remember using H&R and saw a few Winchesters... They were rare in my experience. I saw no noticeable difference between the wood or fiberglass stocks. The E stock helped with control of the M14 on Auto. But only a few men had full auto switches in a company. .. not everyone as many seem to think.

[@causewaykayak]

That was completely enthralling. So much detail. Top marks to Ian for holding up so well. thanks !!!

[@larrygoerke9081]

I loved this rifle, which I fired in the Navy. I was qualified Nuclear Power Operator from 1977-83 on USS Arkansas (CGN-41), so practice with weapons was a very rare experience for me and other interested Nukes. I was well liked by our Gunner's Mates, so I occasionally got to work out with them when I wasn't on watch down in her Plants. Great video - very informative. Thanks!

[@GeneTsao]

I used it in Taiwan's army. It rains a lot in Taiwan. The rain, mud, and dust that could go into the action and the charging handle guide rail is unbelievable. Lubricating the guide rail simply creates more goo and jams. Also, bipods should be standard on M-14s to compensate for poor ergonomics.

[@SomeGuy1234X]

The M14 was obsolete when it was new. Up against the AK it was grossly outclassed for jungle warfare.

[@stevehicks8944]

Were you in Vietnam? I know several old Marines who were; they were among the Marines who had to be ordered to turn in their M14s for M16s. Why did they hang on to this “obsolete” rifle ( your words)? Because it worked when the M16 didn’t; nor did Charlie get up after being hit by a 7.62 NATO round. Not much will stop a 7.62 NATO round; not even triple canopy jungle. Cite your experience with the M14 in combat( if you have any).

[@wjlasloThe2nd]

I'm guessing you have no experience with the M14 in combat

[@jameshealy4594]

​@@stevehicks8944wow, we so rarely see 'the whole AR adoption was a mistake' fudds in the wild these days, what a rare and beautiful creature.

[@gumbomudderx7503]

My father used the M14 in combat in Korea and loved it. He also used the M16 in combat in Vietnam and preferred the M14. The only thing he liked better about the M16 is that you could carry more ammunition, but have less magazine capacity meant the extra mags you could carry were kind of a trade off. The only negative thing I ever heard him say about the M14 is that full auto was useless because of how uncontrollable it was.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

6 MOA sounds pretty horrible these days but the Aussie made FN FAL known in Australia and NZ as the SLR (self loading rifle) wouldn't have grouped much better than that. Its main problem was it came apart in the middle (a bit like an AR15) and, unlike the AR 15, you had the front and rear sights on different bits of the rifle. Any play in the front locking pin was transferred to the sights.

[@tedhodge4830]

The FN FAL is lucky to get 3 MOA on a prime example. Modern M14s regularly strike between 1-3 MOA mechanically from what I've seen. The M16/M4A1 acceptance standard is still 4 MOA I believe, but it's typically quite a bit better than that. That's only the minimum acceptance standard, not the average, so the worst one on the rack is still required to meet that standard.

[@jonfillingim6928]

My dad was an Army Ranger. He enlisted in the 60s and served for many years. He loved the M14. He told me it was superior to any other weapon he used.

[@gravelracing]

My dad was a marine in the 60s. He said the same thing, he and his buddies loved the M14

[@a2birdcage319]

Your dad is also a fudd

[@HighCapacityAssaultPug]

Same here, my father was a Marine during Vietnam and he carried the M14. He refused to carry the M16 (for obvious reasons). He talks so highly of the M14 that my brother and I bought him a M1A.

[@BBaldwin]

@@rimanahbveeWRONG. The M-14 was a fantastic rifle. My dad used one in the Corps and loved it.

[@jehb8945]

​@@HighCapacityAssaultPug For a second I thought I was re-reading part of my own post or a reply to somebody else because my dad what's a Marine who preferred the M14 over the M16 My dad did not like the AR-15/M16 operating system he thought it was a dirty operating system My dad when he was stateside had an M14 21 overseas to DaNang got an M16 possibly even one of the early ones because he was an MP and towards the end of his tour of duty match to choir another M14 during his patrols in The villages surrounding I-CORPS he would take a shotgun and and M1911 but felt kind of naked without a rifle My dad would have only say to anybody who complained about the weight of the M14 that we went through the Pacific with an M1 Garand and nobody complained back then. Anybody who wants to debate my dad unfortunately pease billeted at the local cemetery as of September of last year

[@chanman819]

Significant heat treating problems sounds like institutional memory forgot about the 1903 issues...

[@spvillano]

Probably, largely because most of that institutional memory had long been retired and the young-uns just didn't really pay attention, as they'd "never be involved in such a project".

[@bbb462cid]

Actually the 1903 heat treat issue was not what most understand it to be. A deeper dive into that subject is really enlightening and even eye-opening

[@nathanielweaver7078]

I worked at a machine shop/material testing lab for a few years and we actually went through a few heat treaters before we found a shop that could reliably treat large batches of parts to a very specific spec. It's not easy to do

[@kyleschafer6275]

At least the 1903 heat treating problems were on a smaller scale and were due to shitty ammunition.

[@HDSME]

Do you know low much and many treatments there were? You fall on the floor it was pure cutting edge

[@andybreadley429]

They were aware that Sturmgewehr, AK, FAL and AR10 exist but still chose THIS

[@jacobgreve802]

Springfield had lied to the procurement committee, and said that the m14 could use M1 Garand tooling, which would have said a nontrivial amount of money for production had it been true, which it wasn't.

[@majesticface3631]

@@jacobgreve802if you were to retool using garand parts you might as well adopt the Italian bm59

[@idontwanttoputmyname403]

The AR10s had some issues, and both the STG and the AK weren’t entirely proven yet I would think. The fal one is fair though lol.

[@zenjon7892]

I HIGHLY doubt Cold War-era America would have chosen the AK

[@geodkyt]

​@@majesticface3631True. And had Springfield basically done that, it is entirely likely the M14 wouldn't have been cancelled as abruptly as it was. 1. It would have gone into production faster, thus not already drawing the ire of McNamara right at the beginning of the Kennedy Administration (after the scandal of our "best and brightest" forward deployed troops in Berlin were still carrying Garands and effectively an entirely WWII suite of small arms during the Berlin Blockade, and being photographed next to British troops already equipped with SLRs, etc.) 2. We still would have likely adopted the M16, and eventually still would have made it the standard service rifle. It justvwould have taken longer to transition from "limited specialty purposes" (M2 Carbine replacement, use by SF & recon troops, use in SE Asia, etc.) to "everyone gets an M16, worldwide".

[@POTUSJimmyCarter]

It's actually pretty amazing that, as demonstrated at 19:07, the operating system of this weapon was designed with the goal of smacking Ian McCollum in the thumb. Some might consider this an unusually specific element of a weapon meant to be multipurpose, but in reality it's part of the core principles at play here.

[@philloliver9966]

I qualified "Expert" with the M-14 in the 1990's in the Navy & it still has a place in my heart. Shot one at a range a few years ago and she still has it for me. Wouldn't want to carry one in the desert, but It's a solid shooter in my experience.

[@mjordan812]

USAF communicator here - Viet Nam '65-'66. I remember the Grunts casting aspersions on our "plastic rifles made by Mattel". Funny how that worked out.

[@ltcajh]

I’ve despised those rifles since I was a kid in the 60s for that reason (whether rightly or wrongly).

[@fjb4932]

Everybody loved the CAR-15. The .223 Rem ammo, a chrome lined barrel and done . . . But start changing the powder, adding a forward assist to jam bullets into the chamber, and without a quality barrel in jungle enviroments . . . a cluster-F. I believe Stoner had it right from the start, but leave it to bureaucrats . . .

[@Bob_Adkins]

That's just normal human negativity, which is about 50% of people. About 20% don't like anything.

[@JerryEricsson]

I remember in 1970 when I was in Basic Training at Fort Lewis Washington, when we were issued our M-16's the joke on the open bay floors was 'It's Mattel, It's Swell!" we did well in training with them though. We took our training to heart with the sure knowledge that we would be carrying one of those in the jungles of Vietnam within months of our graduation, All my AIT buddies, many who went through basic with me were sent to Nam but one who was not yet 18, he got orders for Germany.

[@duranbailiff5337]

​@Bob_Adkins Tru-dat, Brother. The 20% are the type who attend a potluck, uninvited. They complain about Everything, they eat Half of the food, and they didn't bring Anything! Sound about right? 🎉 MAGA

[@Mosey410]

My Old Man loved the M-14. When I was growing up he gave me a book to read . Marine Sniper , all about Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam. My Dad called him one day and ended up befriending him. He was an interesting man and my brothers and I enjoyed visiting him. He also had an appreciation for the M-14. Probably more of a sentimental feeling from his days in the Marine Corps. He signed my Dads M-14 in the early to mid 90s I think it was. Happy to have met him and I thank my Dad for those times.

[@gsmith4295]

Thats some cool stuff. Do you still have the signed M-14?? I hope so

[@frakismaximus3052]

Carlos Hathcocks records fell a long time ago 😊

[@MG.50]

​@@frakismaximus3052 But in his day he was the tip of the spear.

[@gsmith4295]

@@frakismaximus3052 That may be true but his legend is alive and well...even with the people that broke his records.

[@chrisleete7379]

I got to talk with Gunny Hathcock at the shows he used to do with his partner, who is still kicking. Gunny was a super nice guy and always had something good to say. The world is poorer with him gone.

[@loukosa7738]

The M14 was designated as a SMUD (Standoff munition disruption) in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In some cases it was preferred to the Mk18s and M16A3s due to engagement ranges and lethality of the 7.62 round. At that time we had no issues with the weapon and accuracy was phenomenal out to 500m though there the automatic fire ability was removed so I have no way to comment on that aspect. Yes ours was a Springfield variant. Great content as usual.

[@alaskajohn907]

I work in a machine shop. Any individual component that is manufactured has its own bluepring, but then there are also several other papers, each dedicated to a specific step in the process that details what that station needs to do. If a part gets caser cut, then deburred, then machined, then bent in a press brake, etc, thats a paper for each. So each part has a stack of papers kept in a traveler that follows the part around the shop until it is assembled/combined with other parts, or QC'd and shipped.

[@Gunners_Mate_Guns]

When I was in the navy, the M-14 was still our standard issue rifle, the other branches having long ago moved on to the M-16 platform. I personally loved the old girl. It was easy to disassemble, easy to clean, easy to shoot, easy to make accurate hits with, decently powerful, and 100% reliable with tens of thousands rounds total fired through various rifles. I just don't get all the hate, except about it being a bit heavy, but to me that forged receiver was confidence-inspiring. I even mag dumped one in full auto, and although impractical once I hit the fourth round fired in that mode, it was still pleasant to shoot even then.

[@rolandsmith4394]

It was used by special forces for ev-er.

[@Gunners_Mate_Guns]

@@rolandsmith4394 It was. Also, an M-14 with custom Douglas barrel was normally carried by the secondary sniper in the customary two-man sniper teams. Carlos Hathcock's right hand man was one.

[@joeblowe4300]

The hate is from all the foreign FAL lovers... they're obsessed with talking about the USA

[@Game-The-System]

Completely with you, shipmate. Had similar experience back when I was stationed aboard a newly-commissioned CG. The ship was issued zero M16s and out of 18 M14s. As I recall, we were only outfitted with 3 or 4 that had selector switches. Our intrepid divisional supply PO at the time somehow ordered 3 or 4 more switches...and at least a few of them got installed on our cache. Not sure where those others went 😋 Also, as you had experienced, full-auto on the M14 IS NOT for the untrained or weak. Most men are just not prepared for the kick of a .308 on semi-automatic, let alone full auto (that just happens to be at a faster rate than an M60). This is where I really scratch my head that 50 years later the military never re-examined the AR10. Not that you'd use the full-auto option often anyway, but the recoil system give you a lot more control of the weapon. I get the weight and round capacity trade-off, but in so many close-mid-range conflicts, the knock-down power of a .308 ball is just superior to .223 ball. If you're not just spraying & praying, then there is no contest.

[@rolandsmith4394]

@@Game-The-System I'm such a wus. I have to take single shots in slow doses. I just use it for big game anyway. If I got in a war, I'd have to take the 50-150 yard shots and revert to a 1911, then a shotgun for anything close. Zombies, you know.

[@RangeRoninChronicles]

I always look forward to your presentations. I enjoyed my short time with the M14 when I was employed by the U.S. of Army. Several years ago, I decided to purchase a Springfield Army product, and the Springfield Armory "M1A Standard Issue Rifle" brought back that enjoyment.

[@Jimmy-zu9gb]

I never got the full auto version, but the army dabbled with the platform during GWOT. We had some semi-auto versions in the 82nd in 2005 (I don't know if they were M1A's or just modified M14's) with ACOGs that according the private news network were "borrowed" from the 173rd and then later returned when the units met again later in the war. I carried it for a couple months and couldn't get it to group for shit, and we were stripping 240 belts for ammo. Later, in 2011, we had the "Enhanced Battle Rifle" or something like that, but was basically an M1A in a fancy stock with a Mk4 Leupold. Problem with that one was that they never wanted to give us much ammo or magazines. My platoon only had like 100 rounds total of match grade for two rifles and 3 magazines. Interesting gun, but it rarely got shot despite tons of fire fights. It did group a lot better than the old wood stocked one from 2005 though.

[@joeblow6417]

Hello Ian, Great video. I trained all through Basic Training with the M-14 from Jan. to March 1969 at Ft Campbell, Ky. During our last week of Basic we had a familiarization class with the M-16, but never fired one until A.I.T. at Ft. Polk, La.

[@TheJimbodean67]

My dad served from 56-76. While in nam from 67-68 as ncoic for an artillery battery. he went out on patrols occasionally as a forward observer and told me he preferred the m14 as it had better suppression power and could reach out and touch someone. He said only fools fired full auto as they turned into anti aircraft guns after the first couple rounds. He did like the lighter weight of the m16 but mentioned the tendency to jam if not cleaned and lubed diligently. He earned the Purple Heart during tet getting the Forrest Gump wound when his camp was attacked in march of 68.

[@stevemccroskey1351]

Did your dad show his scar at family gatherings like Forrest did to LBJ?

[@TheJimbodean67]

@@stevemccroskey1351 i think he mooned everybody at grandpa and grandma’s house once lol, I was too young to remember it myself. His sister never let him forget it haha. He was a hoot.

[@jessiepinkman7736]

That's an amazing story Jimbodean! I could read people's stories about service weapons, all day.

[@Jefferson-l7o2j]

I got that wound in Iraq

[@stevedow2740]

I'm a Marine sergeant. I love the M14. It's very accurate out to 500 yards and beyond. When you're holding it it feels like it's part of you. Sergeant Steve Dow USMC 1966 - 1970 Vietnam Vet

[@RonWagner]

My thoughts exactly! I bought a bolt action Remington, for civilian life in 308. It was just as accurate.

[@jarhead1814]

Semper Fi

[@rolandsmith4394]

Thank God you didn't get eaten by cannibals (or claim such as a matter of stolen valor).

[@jebbelew9428]

Thank you for your service sir.

[@stevedow2740]

How do you think it's spelled? 😊

[@joehntr3]

In 1969 in the U.S Army i trained with the M-14 and fell in love with it. When the Army swapped over to the M-16 I wasn't sure about my feelings on that for some time. In the end I fell in love with the M-16 also but for different reasons. Using open sights on both I could hit a man sized target out to a range of 400+ yards this dropped to under 350 yard range with the M-16. I just found the M-14 to be more accurate at distance than the M-16.

[@Whiskey11Gaming]

I think it is important to clarify that the M14 may have been the shortest serving PRIMARY infantry rifle in US history, but it is among the longest serving rifles in US history. The follow on development of the XM-21, M-21, M-14EBR, and M-25 to fill a gap in capability kept many of these guns in service for quite a long time. I'm pretty sure the US Navy is still using them as line throwers for at sea replenishment, and there are still EBR floating around the armories of various units in the US. I'm a fan of the platform in spite of the weaknesses of the design. There is something about it which just feels right in the hands and the recoil impulse is really lovely. My M1A Loaded will put 175gr SMK into 1.5MOA 10 round groups all day and spits out M80 ball at about 4MOA. Plenty accurate. With modern cleaning techniques, it holds that accuracy between cleaning, too

[@Lex1uth3r]

^This. When I was working for the DoD and Army in R&D 20 years ago we got a lot of requests from units for these in Afghanistan since the 556 just didn't have the range needed for the big terrain out there.

[@Soucka74]

In the mid 90's, I acquired a 70's built Springfield Armory M1A and was accurized by 2 good friends in Palmer, Alaska (Thanks Craig and Rocky)for NRA High Power competition. It was welded with double lugs, rear and fore. Now they only make rear lugged accurized M1A's. I was putting regular 10 rounds at 600 yards into the bottom of a large coffee can, about 8". These rifles can definitely do the job, as long as you do yours. And I'm a shit shot.

[@ronaldkonkoma4356]

It's in Blackhawk Down

[@100nitrog2]

Fun fact: while 7.62X54R is typically acknowledged as the longest serving military cartridge in existence, that distinction arguably also goes to .45-70 Gov't, in the form of the M32 blanks that are used in some models of line-throwing guns to this day. Just throwing that in there because you mentioned line throwing.

[@marshalldcarpenter]

I carried the ebr through 5 tours of Iraq. Anyone who doubts the capabilities of the m14 is inexperienced.

[@Arnor2207]

Bm59 would want to talk to the manager

[@ericsampson372]

McNamara: I AM the manager.

[@paleoph6168]

​@@ericsampson372McNamara: *transforms into Erquiaga EM-62

[@AlanRoehrich9651]

​@@ericsampson372 McNamara was an idiot.

[@jayabramson6702]

That it would!

[@ezzz42]

good weapon, i had the chance to fire one in switzerland. sweet shooter. real slick

[@mikescully3046]

I qualified Expert with the M-14 during Army Basic Training at Ft. Polk in February 1965. My Drill Sergeant was disappointed when I told him I had enlisted for Military Intelligence and would not be going infantry. I loved that rifle because the recoil was less than the black power .58 1863 Tower percussion cap rifle I had learned to shoot as a teenage Civil War reenactor. When my unit of the First Infantry Division deployed from Ft. Riley, Kansas to Vietnam in September 1965 we carried the M-14. Within about 6 months we transitioned to the M-16. I remember the 'grunts' hated that plastic "Mattel" rifle. Over the years I've had a few AR-15 rifles but I've never learned the M-16 Manual of Arms.

[@theodorecarlin296]

There was no real manual arms for the 16, except a modified m14. Other than that when doing the salute you grabbed the sling with your left hand while you saluted, then transferred your right hand back to holding doing so your weapon wouldn't end up on the ground. So all the manual arms did was take into account that it involved just holding your sling. never went up on the shoulder.

[@glennhamilton7781]

April 1967 at PI Rifle range. The Best rifle in the USMC was the M-14 semi auto. I could hit a bird at 500 yards with iron sights. It was adjustable with elevation and for windage. Never a miss-fire. Never a jam. Easy to take down and clean. Why would anyone open up with a full auto burst with a 7.62 x 51? It is impossible to hold your sight picture doing that. An armory had to install the auto selector switch with the M-14. Very few were installed. Auto fire, even with a M-4 is spray and pray. That is why they now only allow a 3 round auto burst with the M4. The service went with a M-16 so the Marine could have more shots/ carry more ammo. Not needed with a M14. A 5.56 bullet was easily deflected due to its 55-gram low weight and speed. A hit with a 7.62 bullet was devastating. One shot kills were easily obtained.

[@mcpig3240]

The M4a1's are back to full auto and 3 shot burst was dropped; current M4's are being upgraded to a1 standard and new M4's will all be M4a1's. Three shot burst trigger was always a bad idea IMO, in the USAF we used 3 round bursts via trigger control, not a complex internal mechanism. Full auto only becomes 'spray and pray' when the troops lack fire control discipline, which is training and doctrine issues curable not some mechanical gizmo. There are times, like MOUT, where full-auto is rather handy when clearing a room.

[@baddestmofoalive]

@@glennhamilton7781 55 gr 5.56 Nato is a lot of things, but “slow” isn’t one of them. Especially out of a 20” barrel! It’s around 500 fps faster than ball 7.62

[@tedhodge4830]

I'm sorry to report that the M4A1 has a full auto select fire switch. Also, it was fun as hell and shockingly I believe I hit the 100m popup targets from prone supported no problem with controlled bursts. At least, the popup target dropped as designed before the usual delay, so it seemed like I hit it.

[@sluggotinfantryman]

There's no telling how many guys are dead because of that stupid 3 round burst. Many.

[@coppertopv365]

Many years ago I had the Army m16a2 & had a M4 If my memory serves both had a selector, Safe, Semi, Burst, an Full, And I don't recall using full but 2 times maybe while doing Op4. Even in the field or Mount we had ROE an couldnt spray an pray, we had to verify the target, an not waste Ammo. Had a DI that was in Delta training an was injured an dropped out, an I had a Platoon sgt who was a SFC who was prior Infantry and had Expert Infantry badge, airborne an Air assult so gun control was always paramount an reserving ammunition till needed. Anyone in my basic training platoon or in the black sheep platoon was always pushed in weapons training. I was Sharpshooter with pistol, and I was Sharpshooter with my rifle till my eyes changed and I needed glasses, I was an M.P. and I was a Gunner. I liked the M9, M249B an MK19. I liked my older M16A2 better than my M4, hit better with that one too. But I have a Semi Auto AR-M4 with 16" Barrel an collapsable butstock an iron sights. I dont like the the 14.5" barrel pos then a pinning an soldered on a long flash hider to get a 16". If you got a 16" barrel you can screw on the flash hider, any you choose on, an it gives more rifling an better aim. I'd rather have my Personal AR-M4 than my old M4. Do I miss the military.. yes an no, I miss the people I knew, the locations, the comradery, I miss the weapons, I miss my old health, there's things I miss but there's a lot of it I don't miss. Would I recommend the military? 🤔 like I tell my teen aged kid.. if you wanna go, sign only for 2 or 3 years if you want, go as a Chaplin assistant, or go in the coast guard. Then get out a lil while an if you wanna go back then you got a few years to decide that.

[@ZuluMufasaTsu]

I'd love to see a video on the "armory concept" you mentioned at 31:50 as being missing after the shuttering of Springfield! Thanks for another great video

[@jonathanromemusic]

I’d love to see that too!

[@brandonwood3442]

Same

[@ken2tou]

I was in Vietnam, Army ‘69-70. We were issued M-16A1A as our weapon. By choice many of us secured extra M-14s as a backup when at our LZ. We kept both locked and loaded. I preferred the M-14 for at camp defense. It rarely misfired and was extremely accurate, once dialed in. When on patrol, we preferred the M-16 due to its light weight. We had to be very careful not to get them too dirty. They jammed easily and without proper lubrication tended to jam. The humidity was brutal and the oils did not last near as long as stateside.

[@azimisyauqieabdulwahab9401]

M14 or AR-15

[@charleswest6372]

Hate the M-16, still a crappy weapon.

[@OfficialKillhawk44]

2007 new version M16A4 still jammed and wasn't in that bad of conditions either. Still prefer the m14

[@personalaccount8914]

@@charleswest6372 The M16 only really sucked in vietnam. The reliability issues were fixed postwar. I have been an infantryman for years and I have only ever had one malfunction that wasn't magazine related, and that malfunction was because I didn't clean it.

[@scottelder3141]

The non-chrome lined barrels of the original m16's contributed immensely to the jamming issues.

[@SanguineDarkfire]

My father was USMC in ‘nam 66-68, used an M14 his first tour and never had a problem with it. Was issued an M16 for his second tour. Kept it clean, but it jammed the first contact he got into with it. He bought an M3 after that and HATED the M16 until his dying day.

[@topcatandgang]

i bought an M3 also while in Vietnam, cost me $20 American money. came with 3 clips.

[@dwrdwlsn5]

@@topcatandgang My dad had a M-14 in training and was issued a M-16 when he got to Vietnam. He said the M-14 was heavy as hell, but when you pulled the trigger, it fired and when it hit, things died. The M-16? Not so much until much later. Then he got a M-16/M203 combo and loved it. Guys in his unit had M3s and one had a Thompson. Loved the M3 and the Swedish K he got somewhere he never explained, but he hated the Thompson because he said it was even heavier than the M-14.

[@jonathanbaron-crangle5093]

M16 jammed because the wrong ammunition was used (not his fault but what was issued) Early ammunition issued (not specified by Colt, who specified a faster-burning propellant) the powder burned slower so it fouled the workings, once they got that figured out, the M16 worked just fine.

[@dwrdwlsn5]

@@jonathanbaron-crangle5093 But it got a VERY bad rep from lots of people before they fixed that. After? Fine weapon as long as it was maintained.

[@robertslusser6753]

@@jonathanbaron-crangle5093 Yeah, they finally figured it out, but more than a few guys died because they issued the rifle to combat troops before all of the bugs were ironed out.

[@Fred_Bender]

A Vietnam vet friend of mine was in the marines and was there when the m16 was being introduced .He preferred the M14 with the 20 round magazine .He got to come home shortly after that.

[@davidtaylor8822]

First of all, how long does it take to do the research for each of these videos; and secondly, how the hell do you manage to deliver such a well-structured, coherent and detailed presentation without notes? That is truly impressive!

[@uwesca6263]

He has a monitor that he look at occasionaly. You see it sometimes when he reference numbers that he look into a specific spot. Also multiple cuts in the video. For research i think it strongly depends on the firearm. For more well known stuff he simply use available literature but he needs to dig deeper for more obscure weapons. He may also get provided information by the collectors, auction houses and museums where he films this. Still its an incredible number on highly professional reviews.

[@truthsayers8725]

dude, i follow about a dozen other yt creators and you BY FAR the smoothest, cleanest (lack of extraneous bs) presenter out there. i LOVE your vids and your clearly explained thoughts.

[@mark-wn5ek]

I cringe when the first words are Hey Dude!

[@jrftracy]

@@mark-wn5ek Hey dude, y'know, just like, chill 😃

[@The_Isaiahnator]

I find myself just as capable of becoming totally engrossed by his presentations as I am at being able to fall asleep to them. 😂

[@apenza4304]

First rifle I ever fired was the M-14 when I was drafted in 1966. I qualified expert without a problem but hated carrying it on those 20 mile marches. After basic we got the M-16 which I also qualified expert but I still thought the M-14 that I had in basic was better at long range than the M-16.

[@donaldoehl7690]

They are that, especially when you consider how much work was done to make the M16 a long range rifle.

[@BaconSlayer69]

What’s considered long range for u 500 yards? Cuz if so the m16 is perfectly fine at that range

I carried the M14 in Vietnam in 66-67. We had a saying about the heavy old tough guy......"The Guy You Hit and The Guy Behind Him".

[@boondocker7964]

Yupp! When "they" got shot, they stayed shot.

[@FIREBRAND38]

BTW, the next time someone blubbers about "military grade weapons" remember that when M14 rifles had trouble meeting the Extreme Spread standard, the Army changed the acceptance standard to our old friend the *Figure of Merit* which was the Extreme Horizontal Groups Size added to the Extreme Vertical Group Size and then divided by two to take the average. Remember, if a military weapon can't meet a standard the usual procedure is to lower that standard.

[@DEP717]

Especially if the weapon system is the Ordnance Folks' "Woobie." See: LCS.

[@snuppssynthchannel]

Forget about that, Tarkus tanks for the army!!

[@FIREBRAND38]

@@snuppssynthchannel Works for me!

[@ronaldkonkoma4356]

Same is true for people

[@daneaxe6465]

The US Army Ordnance geezers were desperate to keep modern European designs out of 'Murica. Their real motivation was job security by keeping the USA Ord dept relevant. Well that didn't work out very well for them. I'm sure they were blindsided a few short years later when McNamara erased them like a dry erase board.

[@AlexanderWiggins-y8z]

At Ft. Knox, in 1968 my basic training was only M 14 with two mornings on the firing range. We had no training on the AR-16. We learned how to disassemble the M14 and clean it. It was so similar to the M1 which I was previously acquainted with. I do not recall that the M-14's that we were issued had any select fire mechanism. A half a year later I was deployed to Vietnam. Before leaving for Vietnam, we had a short experience with the AR-16. We were handed an AR and asked to spray a target about 25 feet in front of us, full auto. That was it. When I arrived in Vietnam in 1969, our company was provided with M-14's

[@George-vf7ss]

FUBAR

[@hillbilly4christ638]

Serious eggheads in Washington caused the many failures. McNamara, Rusk and others who had the president’s ear caused the deaths of loads of servicemen. I don’t believe any of these boneheads should have anything at all dedicated to them anywhere.

[@vicO1323]

M-161A

[@jimlong20]

yes,they were weeded out early as unsuitable as s.a.w.. an experiment that didna work. fini

[@galenhisler396]

To bad they didn't make the scout squad m1 a1 back then .

[@jacobgreve802]

The M14 should be taken as an example of the old engineering adage, anything designed to do everything, does nothing well.

[@xavierlavoie9264]

And the military being dinosaurs refusing to evolve

[@Puttrik87]

What about Main Battle Tanks basically replacing previously diverse tank lineups. They seem like an outlier.

[@moss8448]

it did feel like an everymans BAR

[@jacobgreve802]

@@Puttrik87 remember that the mbt was an accident, not intended. In the case if the mbt, they were designed as medium tanks first.

[@brianjones9780]

Another example, the M2 .50cal was originally designed as an anti aircraft gun. Turns out it's pretty much anti-everything unless it has an inch of armor on it. Anti-aircraft, anti-vehicle, anti-materiel, anti-personnel... You can even snipe with it in distances over a mile if you mount a scope. Absolutely bonkers weapon, over 100 years old since it was first designed, still relevant on the battlefield and probably will still be relevant for another 50 years or more. But it was purpose built for anti aircraft use first, so it was coincidental that it's effective against almost everything else. Especially as drones become more plentiful and up-armored to withstand small arms fire, the 50 cal will likely be the go-to in anti-drone defense. So over a hundred years after its invention, still using it for its intended purpose of anti-air and still any other purpose we can think of. We slap one on top of every vehicle if there's space for it. Some M2s are still in service that were made in the 1930's. If you can't tell, it's my favorite gun of all time. It really speaks for a gun if we still use the exact same model 100 years after it was made. No other weapon in history has that type of longevity on a unit-by-unit basis.

[@horacerider5559]

M1 Garand in basic training, and brand new M -14 when I got to Viet Nam. As a helicopter door gunner I ran a ton of ammo through that thing using homemade 80 round piggy back magazines which consisted of four 20 round mags duck taped together. It took about 2 seconds each time to flip the magazine over, or turn it around. I never had one single jam or misfire with that thing.

[@brianwilson2546]

Quick correction: the M14 has the shortest service life as the main service rifle in the US military, but it is actually the longest serving rifle in US military history. The M14 persists in military service to this day as the M14 EBR, for use as a designated marksman’s rifle.

[@haley746]

The EBR is basically gone, replaced by the G28 in the Army and M110 in the Marines. NSW would’ve replaced them a long time ago too. However I believe the Navy still uses regular M14s as linethrowers

[@thatcarguydom266]

Literally the shortest and longest service life at the same time 😂 This thing is contradiction incarnate Full auto rifle with which you can’t hit anything in auto Intended universal solution meant to simplify things that did anything but Advertised as being a conversion from the M1 Garand but they could never figure it out

[@thatcarguydom266]

@@haley746some special forces units still use M14s although it’s mostly down to the preference of the shooter

[@m1a1abramstank49]

@@thatcarguydom266They use it because they can’t procure 308 AR variants. The only reason they used M14s for marksmanship is because they didn’t give 5 fucks about that area for a time and used what was “best” and even then was worse than say an SVD.

[@JeffEbe-te2xs]

Pulled,out of storage Replace quickly by 7.62 ARs Ceremonial doesn’t count

[@BriGuyIT]

I cracked up when Ian managed to Garand Thumb himself in a completely new way when demonstrating the trigger 😅

[@johntellerman1]

I landed in Vietnam in July 1965 with BLT 2/9 (2nd Btn 9th Marines) on the beach at Da Nang. We all had the M14, and mine was an AR with the selector switch. I carried that rifle as an AR man until April 1966 when I was issued a Winchester sniper rifle. That's another story. The M14 for all of us was super reliable, and even in Monsoon season in the muck and mud it never malfunctioned. And it would penetrate about anything including a quarter inch of steel plate. In our AO we had mostly rice paddies and villes so we had longer ranges than the Army down south who had jungles to contend with. Firing on full auto was NOT a problem! You just had to know how to do it. That "thing" at the butt stock was to put top of your shoulder to be used in the prone position with bipods. In the prone you extended the bipods, put the shoulder extension on top of your shoulder and placed your left hand over the comb of the stock under your cheek and held it down. Then with the selector switch on auto you squeezed off 3-6 round bursts. The rifle (not "gun") would walk a bit sideways if you fired more than that at once but not a challenge to get back on target. (And in a firefight the AR was a much more accurate area weapon than the M60 Machinegun if fired with bipods due to the gunner's longer bursts. That thing that you showed above the selector switch that facilitated automatic fire is the "connector rod." The "fire control group" is the Firing Mechanism Assembly. The rod that you show the the magazine hoods to is the Operating Rod Spring Guide (and Operating Rod Spring). With the M14 you could actually bayonet fight, and you could butt stroke without worrying about breaking the stock like the M16, which we hated and called the Mattie Mattell, the Rat Gun, the Mouse Killer and McNamara's Wonder. It was a piece of junk when issued and the ammo was way over rated. One of my buddies said that to bayonet fight with the M16 was to wait until the enemy jumped out of his hole with fixed bayonet, then you jumped up with fixed bayonet, yell, and gave 'em a "burst of six." On a side note, I find it very interesting that the M1 and M14 were made by various contractors, while the M16 was only made by Colt Firearms! But then, with McNamara owning so much stock in Colt.... In my 30 year career I have had both the M14, M16, and later as an officer the 1911 .45. I always tell young troops my advice on weapons and ammo caliber is "if it don't start with 4, don't take it to war!" (45 ACP), and for rifle calibers "If it don't start with a three, don't give it to me!" (and that includes 7.62mm NATO). And my M14 was a Winchester!

[@johntellerman1]

Also. we DID use the grenade launcher! The launching devices had clips and you could load an M26 frag grenade, a smoke grenade or a Wilie Peter (white phosphorous) grenade on it.

[@Scroolewse]

So only the automatic riflemen were given M14s with the selector switch?

[@johntellerman]

Yes. Only the three AR men in a squad in the Marines had selector switch and bipods plus extra magazines. But, we quickly learned in Vietnam that you could use the safety pin on an ammo bandoleer to serve as a selector switch. Simply drive the split pin out of the selector lock, take the lock cap off and insert the safety pin through the hole where the split pin was, compressing the switch spring, and you could use it like a selector switch. Push in and turn half a turn and you were full auto, do it again and it was back on semiautomatic.

[@649649649134]

I welcome and trust the input of a Marine who used the M14 in actual combat. So John, thank you for your input.

[@swanee22]

...rifle, not gun... Why is it that only Marines know this?!

[@timbrown6629]

My dad was in the army during the 60s as a tank commander, and he loved the M14.

[@jarvy251]

As a tank commander, he wouldn't exactly have to use it very much though, would he?

[@richardstevenson8442]

Just a comment about training with the old rifle and switching to the new one. In August 1965 in USMC boot camp in San Diego we trained with the M-14, upon completion of boot camp we find ourselves at Camp Pendleton in Infantry Training Regiment with M-1s. Switch to Vietnam and once again we have the M-14. The first M-16 I ever saw was on a dead VC. 17 months later I exchange my M-14 for an M-16 and upon firing it the trigger housing group falls out. As we had no more rifles to exchange I was told by the Armorer to just not shoot it. Good advice. I rotated home shortly there after. Good times.

[@rogiervis2306]

I own a TRW 1963 build genuine M14 here in Holland. Semi auto only (by an installed M1 Garand trigger). The M14's here are imported to the Netherlands from Vietnam in the 1970's. Today, a original M14 cost approximately half of a SA M1A. I used it for target shooting. 600 meters prone service rifle. My M14 was completely accurized by NM standards. Took me years to get it really accurate. I love the M14, it's a beautiful rifle. But it is not accurate or reliable enough. It can't handle simple range dust. And it holds accuracy only if you don't take it apart (for maintenance). At best a 2 /2,5 MOA rifle. I use my AR15 now for match shooting. It can run circles around a M14. But the M14 will always have a soft spot in my heart:-)😊

[@Mk156]

Mijn held! 👍 Maar waar in Nederland kun je als particulier met deze wapens schieten? Dacht dat bij de meeste schietsportverenigingen .22 of 9x19mm wel zo'n beetje de limiet is?... of heb ik mezelf toch nog niet genoeg geïnformeerd?..In ieder geval, heel gaaf, leuk om jouw comment als mede-lander te lezen!

[@JENKEM1000]

>national match stuff Have you ever shot at Talladega USA? cheers

[@kymidnight]

Back in the 50s, 2-3 MOA was a sniper rifle. Even today, Most standard infantry rifles are 2-3 MOA.

[@rogiervis2306]

​@@Mk156Amersfoort, Ede, Putten, Bussum hebben schietbanen waar je alle kalibers kan schieten. En anders kun je van militaire schietbanen gebruik maken :-)

[@forrestlindsey3947]

It is possible that your accurizing job didn't work well. I had a Marine Corps- assembled match M14 for competition in late 1970s and It was excellent (two Gold and one Bronze medals) and it served me very well out to 600m. I never competed at longer ranges than that, but the M14 was for 1,000 meter competition back then.

[@illegalclown]

I'm torn. I have always loved the M14. I love the Cold War 1950s esthetics. I also like the IDEA of it being a continuation of the Garand and replacing all of the other small arms with one platform. It is one of my favorite guns to shoot at the range. I also admit that it was a bad service rifle and that it failed and should have never been built.

[@Provo647]

The Garand was a poor design too, with a lot of machining and too much weigth, that only the USA could afford to manufacture.

[@illegalclown]

@@Provo647 I know it's blasphemous, but I'm not a huge fan of the Garand beyond its historical value. I have one, but rarely take it out. It's heavy for what it is. I've always thought thought the feed system was stupid. Throw on a detachable box with a 10 or more round capacity and I would like it more. That's why I like my M1A and SVT more.

[@xavierlavoie9264]

​@@Provo647it was quite ahead of its time however for ww2.

[@Swagjagson]

They shoud have made the m14 a semi auto civillian rifle instead and adopted the AR10. The ar10 is clearly a better choice Who knows, Maybe in an alternate timeline libs are complaining wbiut the m14 being used in shootings instead of the ar15🤣🤣🤣

[@Provo647]

@@xavierlavoie9264 it was not at all. Overmachined and heavy, prone to interruption by mud, the Mondragón and the Saint Etienne and the Tokarev semiautomatic rifles were far more rational designs. Even de Spanish developed intersting semiauto rifles in the 1920s-30s. They were not American, they never existed. I owned a Garand, by the way, with danish markings. One of the worst rifles I have ever owned.

[@gaian2000]

I was drafted in Nov 1967 and survived US Army basic training at Ft Campbell, KY. We were trained on the M14. It was a heavy rifle, the ammo was bulky and heavy. We often used it like gym weights, held at arm's length in front of us for as long as possible in PT. AIT was at Ft Lewis, WA and we trained on the M16. The weapon was lighter, ammo was more compact and weighed less. Weight is a factor when you are carrying standard infantry gear in high heat, mud, rain and jungle. I was a platoon RTO in the 9th ID in Vietnam during 1968-69. When firefights started I was usually working the radio next to my platoon leader. I didn't fire my rifle much in combat and it was a very bad day when my platoon went from 25 heavily armed teenagers down to 4 of us left in the fight (8/18/1968). I loved my M16 with the "birdcage" flash suppressor.

[@masshole4133]

Great video, man! I work right next to the old Springfield Armory building. It's crazy to look out the window at that place and imagine all the weapons that were developed there and how busy that place must have been back then. There's a small lake behind it, and the lake was drained recently for a bit. While drained, some metal detector guys were checking it out, and the amount of stuff they pulled out of there was crazy. Guns, a ridiculous amount of different types of bullets and silver coins, just name a few.

[@Th3Su8]

I was talking with my uncle a while back about military guns and stuff. He was in the Army during Vietnam and I was in the Marines during Desert Storm. He told me he loved the M14 and would really like to own one. Whereas the M16A2 I was issued could just stay in the Marines inventory as far as I was concerned. I have a deeper preference for wood stocks and blued metal, parkerized is okay though.

[@SchwererGustavThe800mm]

Never made sense to me why people gawk and cream their trousers over an M1 Garand but throw a shit fit over the M14, I adore both.

[@daneaxe6465]

The biggest problem I've seen from the M1A is accuracy sucks bad. The worst story was a nephew bought a new M1A which was about $1600. He immediately sent it off to some top tier gunsmith which cost him additional $2000 to $3000 more to make a M21 style super shooter. Boy did he get a surprise when he got it back. Now he had a 17 pound rifle with a massive bulky stock. And it STILL could not equal a bottom of the bucket DPMS LAR-308 in accuracy. Several years of messing around trying to get it to shoot didn't work, so he gave it to his brother who got tired of carrying the thing to his deer stand. Then he dumped on a trade for a usable rifle.

[@natwolf687]

​@@daneaxe6465Lots of people talk up this rifle. I get it, it's iconc, but it's just not very accurate.

[@beardaquatics9163]

​@@daneaxe6465compared to its peers it was an accurate rifle for the day. Most rifles back then were 2-4 moa if memory serves correct. A half way decent rifle now is usually sub 2 moa in many cases. So it is disingenuous to get an older weapon (or old style) and complain it doesn't match a modern rifle.

[@beardaquatics9163]

I like both of them. The M1 because it is a classy old firearm. The M14 because it has nearly the same feel but in a round that is far easier to get. Also if the M14 a was good enough to be a DMR with delta snipers then it is good enough for me ( can't remember which but one of the two delta snipers carried one at time of death in Somalia during black hawk down)

[@mikesacco4889]

I gotta disagree with those dissing the accuracy. I thought it was great. I maxed the course for my expert...had no problems with it

[@kendelvalle8299]

I was in the Navy from 3/64 through 2/68. Did a total of 25 months in Vietnam as a Corpsman with the Marine Corps CAC (Combined Action Company) of 17 men. We patrolled daily, ambushed nightly and raided about once a month. Up north by the DMZ. Lots of fights. We started with the M-14. It was a fine weapon that never failed any of us. When they issued the M-16 many of us did not like the change because the M-14 had been such an effective weapon. All of our M-14's had selector switches to full auto but we seldom used them... mostly to get acquainted with full auto. The dead bodies of the enemy showed the devastating effect of the M-14 round. We also had two BAR's that we seldom took out of our compound. The local PF's (Popular Forces) we worked with used M-1 Carbines and sometimes we used those too. Later in Africa I had a .45 cal. grease gun. Bought off a local guy for $50.00 US. It was old and the magazines did not always feed correctly. I actually had to use it upside down once. After that I went to an AK-47. Worked well! Later as a civilian I bought a couple of M-14's but eventually sold them them. I think the AR-10 was the nail in the coffin of the M-14.

[@jeffsmith8197]

I sent this video to a friend who is a big supporter and fan of the M-14. He already saw the video because he's been subscribed to Ian for years. I was busting his cajones and he said his Springfield Armory M-1a's, his SOCOM 16s, his Tanker versions, his National Match M-1as are perfect. He owns a lot of M1as, my friends, a lot. I love to rib him about his M-1as and his 1911s as being Stone Age tech just to get him going. It's all in good fun.

[@rolandsmith4394]

All warfare is "stone age." So is death. Video games are the farce.

[@bobhill3770]

I often tell folks, I must have been very lucky with the 11 M-14s I have fired. One was an M-14 E2, or M-15 version. (More controllable in that configuration than a BAR.)

[@kot0472]

M14A1 nor M15 were much less controllable than BAR. That's why they weren't successful.

[@eddiea1213]

Qualified Expert with M-14 @ Ft Ord early 1966. Never fired them full auto in Basic training, the switch lever wasn't on them. They told us in Combat we'd be issued levers. Trained on the M-16 @ Wheelus AFB in Libya mid 1967. Was issued M-16 in Vietnam, we called them "toy guns" ie: Mattel

[@JosephTodd-ms6rf]

While serving with the 2nd 75th Rangers, during the Mid 70s, We used a modified M14 for our sniper teams. It was called the M21. I loved that Weapon

[@Chilly_Billy]

Imagine a properly manufactured "M14" chambered in 270 British allowing it to be slightly shorter, lighter and more manageable in full auto mode. Outfitted with synthetic furniture then coming into use, we probably never would've heard of Eugene Stoner.

[@erwinsetyo1061]

Oh, I'm sorry. But I think I would take either FN Universal carbine or EM rifle, and made the M14 a DMR (which basically a M21)

[@joshklaver47]

You mean basically the FAL they were supposed to adopt?

[@profpudwick]

Right, 7 mm, 7x57 Mauser, best infantry rifle cartridge. The 30.06 (30 caliber, 1906) good for light armored vehicles and aircraft, but no advantage at less than 1000 yards for infantry-- See Julian Hatcher's Notebooks. Goat and pig tests at 700 yards ...

[@jacobgreve802]

What I don't understand is how they could look at this in firing tests, and not realize immediately how terrible the full-auto fire was. And as such not delete it for production. As it stands in service M14s almost always had a lock on the selector anyway.

[@spakentruth]

US Army: "POWEERRRR"

[@radfoxuk8113]

Same way the SA80 was allowed to continue to full production, corruption and incompetency.

[@rogermcbadlad2812]

Major Renee Studler. The guy who pushed this thing hard through ordinance corps.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Bull Shit. The thing to remember about people today - is that they are used to the recoil of 5.56mm weapons - which is almost none at all. For those of us who were trained to fire .30 cal. and 7.62mm weapons - the recoil isn't that great. So - their expectations - as opposed to those of the 1950's - are vastly different. In the States - they took off the knob for the selector as they didn't want people firing them on Full Auto - but - in Vietnam - they had the selector knobs on and the people I served with who had used them in Vietnam - didn't have a problem with them that training couldn't over come. .

[@m1a1abramstank49]

@@BobSmith-dk8nwI mean the full auto function is really just a waste of ammo in my eyes. Do note that not every Marine or Soldier in Vietnam was a buff dude, a good amount of them may be similar to the scrawny kid from Kentucky.

[@99catsin6bags]

About 3 months into my deployment in 2006 we got 2 people per squad issued m14s because we were in a rural area and the 5.56 didn't have the reach. Before that the m240 was the only thing we had if we had to get someone across the river.

[@SoloPilot6]

17:00 -- this was intended to eliminate a known problem with the Garand. The operating rod is the actual gas-impingement device, and if allowed to get coked up with propellent residue, it can get sticky. A hot round in a cold rifle can then build up excess pressure at the sample port before the rod unsticks, which causes it to slam back, releasing significantly more gas, blowing the top cover off of the rifle, bending the operating rod, and converting your M1 Rifle into the M1 Bayonet Extender. The system on the FN-FAL is vastly superior to either the M1 or M14. The other way that a few M14s were released into the wild was from law enforcement agencies. They were given a BUNCH of these in the early 1970s, and most didn't find a real use for them. When offered sweetheart deals on ARs, some agencies subsidized going to the Poodle Shooter by selling off M14s. Most of those ended up in places like the Philippines and Taiwan, but a few sheriffs let some go to civilian sales.

[@knightofavalon86]

What fasinates me about the "four guns down to one gun" idea is that it would have been a lot more achievable if they had gone to an intermediate caliber. It still wasn't going to actually work, but it would have been reasonable to replace the m1 carbine, The m1 garand, and the grease gun with something sort of approximating a Ruger Mini 30. Which would have made a very American AK I suppose. Edit: I understand the history of *why* this didn't happen. I was thinking more about what such a gun might look like IF those historical prejudices against anything other than 7.62x51 could have been overcome somehow.

[@christofrini]

I’ve long wondered - and suspect Ian would have an interesting answer - what would have happened if, some time early in the Vietnam war, the Ordnance Department necked up a 5.56 round to .30 cal, and essentially invented .300BLK nearly half a century before AAC. Given the DoD’s propensity at the time to shoot down anything that wasn’t in .30 cal, it surprises me that this wasn’t among their first attempts to “improve” the M16 upon complaints that it didn’t have enough “stopping power”.

[@thebobbyllama6410]

They sort of already had that in the M2 Carbine. I think the long shadow cast by the BAR and the reports of low stopping power in Korea made an intermediate caliber seem undesirable to the Army in the 1950's, unfortunately.

[@patrickporter1864]

They would not act the new British round for the em2. You would wonder if any of these people had battle experience.

[@ulissedazante5748]

Actually, the British SA80 with intermediate ammo (their 4,8mm, then 5,56mm) almost achieved that. The Sterling SMG, L1A1 SLR rifle were replaced by the L85A1 and a heavy barreled LSW version would resurrect a Squad Automatic Rifle/BREN sized weapon and pushing GPMG out of the squad into a platoon heavy-ish Machine gun. Then the whole L85A1 program became the clusterfuck it became, the LSW never get anywhere - but the idea of one platform for all had some sense.

[@leonardwei3914]

One problem was that both the Americans and British wanted one caliber, instead of having an intermediate for the rifle and larger caliber for the GPMG. Which is what the Soviets did post WWII.

[@sambufalini4198]

All I know is that when we fired the M14 during basic training at Camp Pendelton in 1967 I was able to put 10 rounds in the black (old style butts) in about 30 seconds from 200 yards, and 8 of 10 from 500 yards. I credit the training we received from our Marine instructors -- I had never fired a rifle before -- and a rifle that shoots straight.

[@vampolascott36]

I shot with a match 14 in Division matches when I was in the Marines. I placed in the bronze bracket and I had no complaints with my rifle. Consistently hit the bull at 600 yards with iron sights.

[@jeffjames4064]

What has always amazed me is the ability to SEE the target at 300 yards, much less nail it.

[@jimdrich1967]

It doesnt sound like your M14 had accuracy problems. I never fired over 300M but with open sights could drop the human silloettes w/o much trouble, both as a Trainee @ FT Polk, La. (F-3-5, 1966) and as a Drill Sgt @FT Bliss, Tx (C-2-3, 1968-69). I never saw a failure to eject, or load (unless the chamber was too full of sand for the cartrige to fit), or any other failure... It doesn't mean it didn't happen, I just never saw it. The reputation I heard coming back from 'Nam was nothing but 'good' pertaining to the M14.

[@vampolascott36]

@@jimdrich1967 Yeah, 600 yd 20 round slow fire is the last leg of the National Match Course. We used a spotter scope to see the direction of the heat mirage and adjust windage. I went to Hawk Missile School in Ft. Bliss. We were the only Marines there I think. There were a couple Navy Seals in the Red Eye school and we shared the barracks with them.

[@vampolascott36]

@@jeffjames4064 You position the front post on the target frame.

[@RonWagner]

Thanks for that info. I have never had the opportunity to fire at long ranges but at 78 years old I would still like to take my Remington bolt action 308 out for a full day. I don't have a peep sight, which I preferred., but a basic 4X. What kind of iron sight did you use?

[@M1A2-Tanker]

Ian, your videos are great. Thanks for this breakdown of the M14/M1A rifle. I especially enjoyed your Czech visit with TFB. Keep up the good work my friend. 1.5M views, you rock!

[@jameskilpatrick7790]

I love it when Ian rolls up his sleeves and does a deep dive into something. So much accumulated knowledge and research gets brought to bear.

[@merylpelosi8485]

My brother served in the Army National Guard in the late 60s with an M-14. He told me it was a great platform, but blamed inaccuracy on being issued worn out equipment. I missed out on buying a marksman (sniper?) version with the optic and carry bag for $1100.00 about 30 years ago.

[@egoalter1276]

If I remeber right the inaccuracy was in part because disassembly required removing the furniture, and thus the sights would significantly shift zero after cleaning it.

[@samwise1790]

Accurized version of it still suck compared to even a cheap AR platform rifle

[@christophercorkill651]

Chris ​@@egoalter1276

[@andrewroberts3187]

If your AR platform is using 5.56mm it will not have that same reach or punch.

[@donaldoehl7690]

M14s we had in my Guard unit were lightly used and had been accurized by our unit armorer, probably without authorization; trigger, NM sights, bored flash hider and glass bedding. They shot VERY well. I shot an 856/1000 with "my" Winchester rifle to earn my Governor's Twenty tab in 1988. I would have hated to spend any time living with it slung across my back, however!

[@mindeloman]

I recall Eugene Stoner talking in that interview from way back the M14s main purpose was to feed the Armory at Springfield. The brass were extremely reluctant of turning over their small arms development to the private sector. The Garand while a great platform in WWII, was soon outclassed by the assault weapons being developed. The Springfield Armory served its purpose, which was to mass produce small arms with interchangable parts. It took a government backed effort to do it and great advancement in production techniques were made. The Armory was shuttered in the late 1960s. But we are now basically seeing the same thing with space launches. It took a government backed effort to make that happen. Today, private industry is taking over lower earrh orbit launches and NASA is now focusing on deep space launches.

[@dlmsarge8329]

Well said.

[@edmundcharles5278]

All true! Very few, if any, small arms are/were developed by the government depots; even the M1 Garand was invented by an individual who worked on the M1 design with permission of his superiors!

[@romelrecinto1460]

As a military officer who lead soldiers in the battlefield, especially in a jungle warfare, I can honestly say that using the M14 rifle in the Vietnam war is not a good idea. The bolt of the M14 is expose and is prone to rust even to rainwater. When i was a young lieutenant, leading my platoon, some of my men were using this rifle. After a few days patrolling in the jungle, they could hardly cock the rifle because the expose bolt is full of rust (the 20 round-magazine is also prone to rust). Moreover, the M14 is too long for jungle warfare were the thick foliage allows a foot soldier to see a few yards away. Another factor to consider is that, they can only bring 10 20-round magazine (200 rounds of ammo) as compared to standard 5.56 mm rifle such as the AR15/M16 rifle where we carry 12 30-round magazines plus the 0ne inserted to our rifle amounting to 390 rounds of ammo per personnel, that means 190 rounds more which is a lot considering that we are operating in the jungle, away from our supply point.