M14 vs BM-59 | What The M14 Should Have Been?!

Looking for a product featured in this video? KZbin prevents us from posting links. Head over to our website to find what you're looking for.
Check out our second channel Outside The Warehouse: / @outsidethewarehouse
Podcast Channel - / @cf_podcast
CF Clips Channel - / @cfclipsshorts
Facebook - / classicfirearm
Instagram - / classicfirearms
Twitter - / classicfirearm

[@thebadblokke]

I was issued the BM59 in the Italian Army back in my conscription days. We hated it back then because it was heavy. But with hindsight, it was a good gun. To be clear, there were three variants: 1) Standard, with solid stock; 2) TA, with side folding stock; 3) TP, folding stock and removable muzzle device. TA stands for "Truppe Alpine" (Mountain Troops). TP for Truppe Paracadutiste (Airborne Troops). We also had M1 Garands in 7,62 NATO made by Berretta that we used mainly for guard duty.

[@tombearclaw]

Compared to the svelte carcano and mild 30 carbine 762 NATO is a lot of weight and power and makes for a lot of load to lug around

[@robertborgeson1821]

Very cool. It wasn't in the video nor did you mention barrel lengths in your recounting but was it possible to get a short barrelled version with a brake?

[@thebadblokke]

@@robertborgeson1821 Yes, the TP has a shorter barrell. But I'm not sure of the lenght.

[@tomgoodwin9161]

I have enough parts for several of these. Got a couple of barrels for the Italian M1 Garand rifle. What they did was to shorten the 30/06 barrel about 1/2 inch FROM THE REAR and then re-chamber to 7.62MM. Both barrels I have (Beretta) are nice but one (your guard duty rifle) has marks from the op rod on it that show it was manipulated many times, wearing extensive bright spots on it. Muzzle wear measures ZERO and throat wear measures 0.5, a lot tighter than most new Garand 30/06s. In other words a brand new cut-rifled barrel. Parade ground, manual of arms use but never at the range. On my 1943 receiver, 1/2 inch groups at 25 yards with M80 ball. Should be a good shooter with match ammo.

[@joelee2371]

​@@tomgoodwin9161intersting; I have a recently purchased BM59E kit, and a Garand receiver; could you possibly point me in the right direction for getting the machining info? I have a mill and the skills to use it, but some drawings or blueprints would be essential. And where do you find magazines? The kit had one. I wonder if it would be possible to cut the receiver for M-14 mags, or modify the mags to work. I have modified my FN49 to use M-14 mags, so I've got an idea of what I'm doing. Thanks for any advice you can give me.

[@clifbradley]

I had my grandfather's BM-62 that he got back in the 80's and it was his 'hog gun' or 'deer gun' when I would visit him in the summer in rural Georgia near Gay, GA. Essentially, whatever crossed the field when he was out, got shot with the .308. Turkey, hogs, deer, neighbor's sheep. Hunting season was whenever he needed food. He also carried a Beretta .32 ACP and he had a Beretta Over and Under 12 guage that was valued into the thousands. My cousin was a degenerate thief and pawned all of the guns for $1200 so he could buy stereo equipment. He also pawned my grandmother's diamomd engagement ring that he bought for her when he was stationed in Holland right after Market Garden. Luckily my grandfather's souvenir P-38, Luger, PPK were kept here in Florida.

[@htchd1htchd149]

That cousin would of got taken hog hunting

[@bracoop2]

Stereo equipment? I highly doubt that. People don’t steal grandma and grandpa’s heirloom firearms for anything other than drugs.

[@partymariner]

Damn there’s always one in the family!

[@johnelliott4521]

Where can we get BM. 59

[@afb78759]

👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🤛🤛🤏🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🤛🤛🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

[@neutronalchemist3241]

Do not forget that the BM59 has the M1 original receiver, that's longer than the M14's one. The longer rearward motion of the bolt gives it a little more time to slow down. That's why even the BM62 has a less snappy recoil.

[@giobenve]

As an italian I've really enjoyed your video. There is only one mistake: the BM62 is not a tanker version for LE or anything like that, it is the civilian variant that Beretta made for the civilian market (at that time we were not allowed to own a real BM59). That's why it does not have the muzzle device: because it is also a granate launcer. Now we can own a real BM59 (as well as M14 and so on) but the BM62 still is a good collector item.

[@colton72395]

Did you guys get your rights back and I didn’t know about it you can own all the fun stuff now

[@thecommentaryking]

​@@colton72395 No, it was mostly because the BM59 could only be sold to the military and not civilians, so Beretta had to change a few things for them to sell it to the public. Once the military begun to phase out the BM59, civilians could buy them from government auctions

[@frankstabler1920]

The M1 was originally designed by John Garand to have a detachable box magazine, but the Army Ordnance department wanted the en bloc clip. Garand also designed the M1 in a .28 caliber but the Army wanted 30-06 because they had thousands of rounds of ammunition already in stock.

[@gregb6469]

Not thousands of rounds, MILLIONS of rounds. The War Department had purchased millions of rounds of .30-06 ammo back in 1918, in anticipation of the war continuing into 1919 and the American-led invasion of Germany, but when the Germans threw in the towel in November of 1918 the American armories found themselves stuffed with millions of rounds. When in the early 30s it was decided to develop a semi-auto battle rifle, the need to keep costs low (it was the middle of the Depression) made it unfeasible to just throw away all that ammo and go with a new cartridge, so those who were competing to sell the Army on a new rifle were told it had to shoot the.30-06 round.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

General Douglas MacArthur, then U.S. Army Chief of Staff, was the man responsible for the decision to stick with 30-06 instead of moving to the .276 Pedersen, which had performed well in trials up to that point. MacArthur's reasoning was sound, although some fault him for it with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. Armories and warehouses were already well-stocked with millions of rounds of 30-06 ammunition, and ammo plants were tooled up for it. Moving to a new service rifle cartridge in a different chambering than the BAR and Browning M1919 medium machine guns, would have forced army ordnance and supply to add an additional cartridge to their system, as well as ammunition plants manufacturing ammunition for the U.S. government. Conversely, if the entire military had switched to .276 Pedersen, that would also have cost the armed forces money they did not then have during the Great Depression. Although the new cartridge offered certain advantages, such as a ten-shot en-bloc clip capacity for the M-1 instead of eight using the 30-06, in no way could the existing 30-06 round be considered a subpar performer. It had distinguished itself in actions great and small up to that point, from the Philippines to Haiti to Santo Domingo to World War One. It had also proven itself in competition and as a superb hunting round. In short, although the 276 had certain features which were appealing, its strengths were not such that it was a clear-cut winner over the 30-06; indeed, on the basis of the evidence, the 30-06 was superior to it in most ways. At best, we can say that the 276 cartridge was promising but unproven. Budgets were extremely tight during the inter-war years of the depression. There was barely enough funding to maintain what the military had already in use, let alone adopt new designs which would have required substantial outlays. For every dollar that was saved, it could be used someplace else that needed it even more. In retrospect, the army is fortunate to have been able to afford the design/development and eventual adoption of the M-1 rifle, let alone a new cartridge for it. MacArthur made the right choice and it has been amply vindicated by history. Firing the 30-06 cartridge, the M-1 rifle became a legend and deservedly so.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

@@gregb6469 The ammo would have never been thrown away. The number of rounds shoot by rifles is irrelevant in respect to the ones shoot by MGs. It would have been enough only to keep vehicular MGs in 30-06 (there was no scarcity of M1919 Browning MGs) to quickly consume all the stock in case of war. "Oh, but it would have been a logistical nightmare". Yeah, because the .30 Carbine instead... The only problem of the .276 Pedersen was that it was still TOO powerful. They should have adopted something in the .30 Remington power range for the infantry rifle (that would have made the rifle light enough to not need the M1 Carbine) and keep the 30-06 for belt-fed MGs (that already have a different logistic).

[@robertsansone1680]

U.S. Army Specifications were, (and going from memory) "There will be no openings in, or protrusions from the bottom of the rifle. It will be loaded from the top and in one motion". John Garand did a masterful job considering the restrictions he faced.

[@christinepearson5788]

Mr Grand offered them a box mag and .276 in the 1930's ordince dropped the ball on box mag and Douglas McArthur hamstring us on 30-06. Our Ordinance Department took way too long to copy the BM-59. An AR-10 in 276 Patterson would be viable today and we could have had .277 Furry in late 1950's

[@AlanToon-fy4hg]

Isn't it funny how we always re-invent things...

[@AlexS-zr2nb]

​@AlanToon-fy4hg the more things change the more they stay the same

[@matteoorlandi856]

We had .277 Fury in early '900s, It was called 7mm Mauser...

[@bladerunner5810]

@@matteoorlandi856 I always considered the 7mm Mauser to be the father of most modern cartridges. An Englishman named Bell....the most prolific elephant hunter of all time used the 7mm for the bulk of his kills. He also used the .303 but preferred the 7mm.

[@matteoorlandi856]

@@bladerunner5810 exactly. Even smaller, the 6,5x55 swedish Is the father of the all "wonder" 6,5 calibers around. People keep inventing the well but there Is nothing impressive into those new calibers everybody goes Crazy about now.

[@markwalker4485]

Being in the last unit in the Commonwealth to use them I can say nothing at the time was better than the FN FAL. I do think the modern m16 styles are better but never have the mystic

[@hunterphfr]

Which unit?

[@reubendobbs8011]

I agree, I never found it too heavy or too long because its what we worked with got used to, loved it

[@joelee2371]

The FAL is an excellent rifle, in the same class as the M-14; the M16's direct impingement, self-fouling gas system will never be the equal of any other rifle except the equally abhorrent 6mm Lee Rifle, which at least made a more rugged club than the Armalite.

[@mfallen2023]

@@joelee2371 You've not owned a DI

[@justinjones9042]

Really great history, there is no denying the history of the gun shaped our world and those were the great implements that had a huge part of that history. The tanker style loved it since I was a kid .

[@99Racker]

I agree. I have carried and fired all of them and my favorite is the BM59. I have a custom .308 M1 Tanker with a Smith muzzle break and that is better than some. I sold my BM59 when Ca. outlawed most semi autos. Sad situation. If I had but one battle rifle, it would be BM59. Just think of the money we would have saved if we had carried out conversion. Thanks for the memories. And we had more M1s.

[@dennisfraser6896]

Fal should have been the choice but they wasted time and money on the m14 as American polotics wanted an American rifle.

[@mygoodsire864]

tbf the FAL was a very young design with loads of its own issues at the time. We look back on it fondly because it was given time to improve while the m14 was scrapped early on.

[@robleyusuf2566]

M14 is better and more accurate

[@centurian318]

Bm59’s receiver is 30-06 length, giving it longer bolt travel with the 7.62.

[@nicolaandria522]

The foldable trigger was mainly intended to launch rifle grenades, otherwise there was the risk to injure the index finger against the trigger guard.

[@bracoop2]

Was it not for winter gloves as well?

[@nicolaandria522]

@@bracoop2 As far as I know it was used for that as well but it wasn't the main scope.

[@tommccormick9290]

I'd really like to compare them to the H&K 91 that I used to own till 1982. My neighbor, an Army vet, said the 91 kicked more than his M1 Garand.

[@m1cajah]

I don’t have access to an M1, but my HK91 is definitely more “snappy” than my M14. Even though I think it weighs more (with scope and full 20 round mag it approaches 13lbs). Never weighed the M14 (also scoped and 20 round mag).

[@JG54206]

As cool as a BM59 is, the AR10 was absolutely the best choice at the time. There’s a reason why many spec ops dudes during the GWOT didn’t choose a SCAR H and instead took an SR25.

[@ostiariusalpha]

The AR-10 is essentially a better battle rifle than the BM59 or FAL, but I don't know that Colt could be trusted not to screw it up like they did with the early M16A1. At least the 7.62mm NATO ammo wouldn't be as problematic as the 5.56×45mm was to start with.

[@JG54206]

@@ostiariusalpha I wouldn’t say that Colt screwed up the original M16A1 at all… the early problems were pretty much all induced by the early ammo which was very different from the ammo they tested and developed the gun with. The guns were built by Colt to the specs set forth from the military as per the TDP.

[@dw7094]

"Spec Ops" is an entirely different mission set than the traditional combat arms formations. In addition, Combat Service Support is the largest part of the force, so "Spec Ops" is a miniscule part of the force, so they cannot be the standard bearer for individual weapons.

[@JG54206]

@@dw7094 Operators are the ones who are gonna use the gun the most on a day to day basis. My point is if they’re picking a certain gun, it’s probably for a good reason. The AR10 would’ve been the best choice as far as a 7.62 battle rifle for conventional forces as well. You can’t use combat support personnel as the standard for small arms either, considering their job isn’t to get engaged. Generally speaking, you would choose the best rifle for the infantry as a baseline. Like I said though, the small arms being used by special operators are usually being used by them for a good reason. Sometimes it’s a very specific mission set that is dictating that choice, sometimes it’s just because it’s generally preferable. Case in point was that many Vietnam era special operators were using an AR derivative before conventional forces were. Once the conventional forces got their hands on it (with the correct ammo and with the proper maintenance equipment) it turned out to be better in pretty much every way than the M14.

[@garysarratt1]

“We’re out on the ‘RANGE’ today, so please bear with the gunfire you hear in the background”.

[@jeff7.629]

@@garysarratt1 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@johncraig7823]

What is the name of his company?

[@garysarratt1]

@@johncraig7823 Whose?

[@johncraig7823]

@@garysarratt1 The Older man in the video! He said it but could not hear him well.

[@garysarratt1]

@@johncraig7823 Idk, I’ll have to have a rewatch; I’m not very familiar with this channel anyhow.

[@alanwhiteside410]

I’ll take them all ! Thanks Happy 4th 🇺🇸🫡

[@georgejoseph4164]

I saw one of these (BM-59) on the shelf in a CZK gun shop, had no idea what it was. Thank you.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

For how similar they are externally, M14 and BM59 are the results of two completely different conceptions of the role of the infantry soldier. The M14, from the point of view of the end user, is a 20 rounds M1 Garand. Nothing more. The BM59 is a 20 rounds M1 Garand, AND an occasional LMG (muzzle brake and bipod) AND an effective grenade launcher (grenade sights - gas cutoff and "winter trigger").

[@frankstabler1920]

Not true. The M14 was supposed to take the place of the M1 and the BAR.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

@@frankstabler1920 With the same platform, not with the same rifle. The M15 Squad Automatic Weapon should have replaced the BAR. The standard M14 rifles issued to the infantry didn't even have the selector switch installed.

[@tamoaclubrimessaggiocamper3763]

Buongiorno a tutti da italiano ed ex militare conosco molto bene il bm59 arma che per l' esercito italiano per quell' epoca ci ha dato la possibilità di avere un arma credibile in un contesto di guerra fredda. Il costo dei primi bm59 era ridicolo rispetto a quelli dell' m14 perché si partiva da un Garand che era disponibile in grosse quantità. Ho sparato molto con il bm 59 per poi essere sostituito con un ben più moderno Beretta 70/90 e successivamente del arx 160 arma in dotazione oggi. Le mie considerazioni sul bm59 sono di un arma affidabile robusta ma sulla prova in poligono l' m14 risulta essere più preciso. Interessante sul bm59 il secondo grilletto detto invernale perché poteva essere usato dalle truppe alpine con i guanti. In realtà serviva per le granate da fucile che danno un forte contraccolpo. Nel bm59 c'era la versione da fanteria con calcio in legno, la versione sc per truppe corazzate e di cavalleria che il calcio era in metallo e ripiegabile, poi cera la versione scp per le truppe paracadutiste con cannna più corta.

[@Futon_III]

Of course Army Ordinance picked wrong. There was no cronyism with Baretta back then.

[@michaelbarfield528]

Col. Rene Studler....nuff said for selecting M14 over FAL

[@diggman88]

They almost certainly sabotaged the M16. The off-the-shelf AR-15s used by the Air Force and avrn had none of the issues the M16 did. They were mad that Stoner made them look like fools and got Springfield armory shut down.

[@michaelbarfield528]

@@diggman88 As Mr Small Arms Solutions on his KZbin channel says " the U.S. Army Bureau Ord. under Col. Studler did "everything and anything" to ruin the rifle AR-15 and Eugene Stoner they could"...and at the time "DID"!

[@hbpu2156]

BM 59 is the only Beretta’s make that I’m fond of.

[@HDSME]

M 14 best rifel ever made !

[@Paladin1873]

I've owned three BM-59s, starting with my first one in 1977. At that time the only thing I could find was a parts kit, but once finished and assembled it never worked right, so a few years later I purchased a Golden State BM-59. It worked until the rear of the receiver blew off. That's how I discovered it was a re-weld with improper heat treating. It would be three more decades before I bought another BM-59, and it was a James River rifle. So far it works fine, and I like the fact that the BM-59 magazine is much more durable than the M-14 magazine.

[@johnswanson4266]

Amazing he mentioned the piston! When I was qualifying on the M-14 halfway through the exercise the weapon ceased to discharge simply because the piston failed to function.

[@sibbolo9204]

I mean, was just an economical issue for us, italian, we can't afford all new combat rifles, we have tons of garand in good shape, we are Italians, why don't study and invent something converting them into BM-59.... and there's Beretta behind this operation, so what could go wrong, yes it's heavy. That's all... the fine art to do what i can with what i have, as our parents teach to many of us.

[@edwardpate6128]

I think the US should have adopted the H&K G3 myself. I love that platform.

[@pat707443]

I agree the hk 91 is one of my favorite 308s!! The Germans and Israelis have always made decent weapons!!

[@timothyhines7845]

My father was in the Marines back prior to the Vietnam conflict. He told me of being issued an M1 Garand that accepted a BAR magazine. He said the used them for approximately 3 months before having to turn them in and being re issued a Garand prior to being forward deployed to monitor the Ho Chi while the French were fighting in Vietnam. He always lamented giving up those weapons as it had effectively tripled the effectiveness of a weapon he was intimately familiar with. He always felt the M14 was a cheat, and the M16 useless in it's original configuration.

[@TheOneTrueAJ]

As a Kalashnikov diehard, I am overdue for a Garand. I want a modern decked out one. Any suggestions?

[@jaiell2049]

When I hear Modern Decked out Garand, I instantly think of Post Malone's setup. Garand Thumb has a vid on it

[@TheOneTrueAJ]

@@jaiell2049 yup. I have seen that. What kind was that? That was hot.

[@warrenmintz5227]

As a former Gunner's Mate, I spent some time in the armory and had a couple of selector switches lying around. I thought it would be fun to put one on one of our M14s. We didn't have the E2 stabilizing kit for them. We challenged ourselves to see how many rounds we could put on target. After about three, they were all in the sky. Good times.

[@Matt_B27]

Out of the trials to replace the M1 we should have gone with the T48 (FN FAL). The military’s procurement system and what was the actual Springfield Armory really fucked the service members in the end.

[@hlam998]

My grandpa was issued the Gargand and the M14. He’s hated it with full auto, but semi automatic weapons was a Charles Hunter, you be surprise how many Charles it’s taken.

[@stephengiunta1564]

I heard that James River screwed up those MAS rebuilds. Is that true?

[@tiiiimmmmmm]

The FAL would've been the better choice for m14

[@TexasNationalist1836]

@@tiiiimmmmmm nope not at all

[@Genesis23OPB]

FAL or G3 or SIG 510, all better choices, at least in the context of vietnam

[@STRAKAZulu]

It didn't earn the title of "Right Arm of the Free World" for nothing.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

@@TexasNationalist1836 It would definitely have. The M14 was also hard to mass-produce. The main reason the M16 had been introduced was that there was no way to chug out enough M14 for the Vietnam war. What use is a service rifle that you can not produce enough when it's needed? Both the FAL and the CETME-G3 (other than being more controllable, due to the in-line barrel), with their stamped construction and simpler furnitures, were easier to mass-manufacture.

[@TexasNationalist1836]

@@neutronalchemist3241 but that’s not a gun issue that is a QC issue and a manufacturing issue

[@pasqualinoiannelli4275]

That BM62. THAT'S what I want. Ty for this video!

[@brandongibbs3016]

That target took a beating

[@upscaleshack]

They scared it quite a bit but I didn't see that many actual hits on it.

[@iac4357]

The original '59s were made from modified M1 Garands. I also remember reading once that the '59 took about 18 months to develope; versus the M14's ~12 years.

[@Emibro]

Very nice video... Just one note: the so-called "winter trigger" was in fact devised to be used when launching grenades, as the cut-off would emphasise the recoil, with the risk of hurting the trigge finger... It also doubled as a "winter trigger" to be used with mittens...

[@A_potato9772]

I have a newer james river bm 59 and i love that gun. I requested one made out of Italian converted WW2 garand parts and they delivered, the stock is very worn and cracked but it's such a cool piece of history.

[@cseivard]

I learned a bunch of info. Thanks (oh, kaya looks ripped!)

[@NoGoBu]

M-14, Sam screwed the pooch Bigtime. Dropping it,. Let's go back to the M-14 🪖🫡

[@G.W-01]

What we need is a Bula defense lefty m1a super match,tanker, socom fusion with a chf 4150 cmv, chrome lined barrel then and only then will we have a m1a worth having.

[@wldtrky38]

I had an HK91 back in the early-mid 80s. 1 of my only regrets, as fsr as sold/traded guns. I love my SAI M1A Loaded, my 2nd. But my AR 10 will shoot better groups. I've never been in combat so wont even try to comment as to that. A big THANK YOU to ALL Veterans, on this Independence Day, and EVERY DAY 🇺🇸

[@thebakk34]

Not sure if it was on purpose, but filiming over the shoulder angle, with the dark muzzle against that first berm on the left, you can see how different the muzzle rise or recoil is between the weapons.

[@tanguito0007]

There is also the BM59E, which is a conversion of the m1, to 7.62x51, made by Beretta, for Argentina, of which I have one, with semi and fullauto fire selector, and it is extremely controllable. I don't have the 20-round magazine, it's not available here. greetings from Argentina

[@brannenthebranbarianhereot8502]

this is a great video. This is authentic garand thumb.

[@billycarlton1294]

I bought a JRA m14 paratrooper. Nice rifle but the front sight was too short and I was unable to zero the rifle with the original sights. Hopefully they got this problem worked out.

[@KingCobra66]

I'm loving the look of that BM-62. Put that paratrooper folding stock on with that 17in barrel, daaamn

[@robertborgeson1821]

Exactly what I was thinking. Short barrel, muzzle brake, and pistol grip would have been the best version possible

[@tombearclaw]

Maybe the Garand might have been better as an individual weapon if it were chambered in .276 pedersen or the bm59 in .280 British. I know the major drivers as to why .30 caliber rifles were used for ww2 and the Cold War but it’s still curious to wonder if resulting designs might have made adoption of high velocity .22 caliber weapons unnecessary

[@alancranford3398]

My experience with the M14 is very limited and I have only seen BM-59 rifles while on vacation in Italy. My service rifles were the M16A1 and M16A2 and I have had a half-century of experience with that platform. I owned an M1 Rifle (Garand) and an M1A (commercial M14 by Springfield Armory) for a few years but had to give them up because of living and working overseas. I fired several dozen rounds through a National Match M14 that belonged to a member of the Marine Corps Rifle and Pistol Team. And I read a lot of comic books. In my unqualified opinion the BM-59 is what the M14 was supposed to be. In addition to the BM-59 gas system and muzzle brake/grenade launcher, the Beretta also has a slightly longer receiver. That receiver was from M1 machinery Beretta used to make M1 Rifles under license. The longer receiver fixed a problem with the M14 -- on full auto, the M14 quickly develops jamming problems--and part of that could also be the gas system. I forgot--what bayonet does the BM-59 take? Thanks. It appears that my prejudice is validated. The BM-59 is what the M-14 should have been.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

The bayonet for the BM59 is am Italian made variation of the M1 Carbine bayonet (original M1 Carbine bayonets do not fit).

[@alancranford3398]

@@neutronalchemist3241 Thanks. The M4 Bayonet is an M3 Trench Knife with a muzzle ring and locking latch--as are the M5 (M1 Rifle), M6 (M14 Rifle), and M7 (M16) bayonets. A variant of the M4 Bayonet makes sense. The M5 Bayonet might have been part of the Italian-made M1 Rifle technical package. I'm pretty sure that the long M1903 bayonet (common to the M1903 Rifle and the M1 Rifle) wouldn't be made after World War Two--the M1 Baynet has a 10" blade and also fits the M1903 Rifle.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

@@alancranford3398 You are welcome. Mind that the Italians received large quantities of M1 carbines after the war (you can find pictures of Italian soldiers sporting them still in the '80s in some occasion), so they knew it well. The same bayonet had been used for the AR70/90 also.

[@alancranford3398]

@@neutronalchemist3241 Thanks. I have a goal of learning something every day. The AR70/90 is the same as the BM59? That's neat. American trench shotguns used the M1917 bayonet from the Winchester 1897 to the Winchester 1200--the Navy/Marine Remington 870 used the M7 bayonet.

[@sc928porsche8]

reake the muzzle brake on the 14. Can make a tremendous difference!!

[@dabbgk]

What’s wrong with y’all’s website? Keep getting payment errors when trying to make a purchase.

[@brannenthebranbarianhereot8502]

@classicfirearms This video is so good I would like to request you to semi automatic rifles of the same period compare; SVD vs M1 Carbine vs M1 Garand vs ect,

[@ianray8823]

What a lovely family reunion

[@lthbxfrosty]

I have 3 AKs done by JRA. Wouldn’t mind getting my hands on one of these rifles done by them sometime.

[@ericashline7552]

BM-59 giving off some Yugo SKS vibes with that grenade sight

[@Oxmix66]

I love all 3 rifles. You had the same shooting response that I have about felt recoil with the 3 rifles. I personally feel that if you love the platform you should own all 3. 😀

[@kcv5716]

Wonder if you could put a muzzle device on the BM-62? A whole lot of victory on that table.

[@verfugbarkite]

The guys shooting style is textbook standing marksmanship. I bet he normally uses the shooting sling.

[@elphi4321]

The M-14 was America supporting the team / design. I am (almost) sure that a few ballistic experts (in a bar) were agreeing that the AK-47 was the best design, 90% of the time.

[@riccardo.pratesi]

There are some oddities in those BM59s, both lack the guide for the clips, furthermore the version with folding stock presented is not for Paratroopers but for Alpine or Special Troops (TA), the one for paratroopers has the removable grenade launcher during launches, during my military service, except for the first two months of training, I always used the TA version, and not for Infantry, the TA is less convenient to use, but in armored vehicles or while driving it is preferable.

[@warrenpuckett4203]

The thing that made me appreciate the M-14 was the M-60. Every body wanted to shoot the M-60, but did not want to carry it. I got to carry the M-60.

[@phluxtersharpe4646]

LRB makes smokin M14s. FALs look tough w the Rhodesian paint.

[@James77721]

...This guy came over from the marketing department and it shows. Great content. Your presenter is obviously not a firearms guy at all though.

[@user-lx6kn9nh9r]

M-14 Automatic Rifle can not be taken by granted by any kind of Rifles in the world coz this is also a powerful one like AK-47,Galil etc

[@ishyab011]

:( A happy happy joy joy day at the range! :) Thanks for the video and sharing.

[@jaybailleaux630]

I own the M1A . Like the plain M1 better . I do not like the grip angle of the FAL. I would like to try the BM 59 , FN 49 , and AR 10.

[@Friedbrain11]

I'd gladly take either (or best yet) or both:)

[@sgt_slobber.7628]

Never heard of the BM-59 until now!!!!:/

[@wessd]

Reliable. Unless it gets muddy. or really cold.

[@TexasNationalist1836]

I really want the M14E2 stock I would love one I already have the walnut stock M1A

[@Doublezzranch]

SARCO is a great place to start looking. Back in the day we'd get them for about a hundred dollars.

[@TexasNationalist1836]

@@Doublezzranch if I already have the M14/M1A can I just transfer the hardware over from the walnut stock to the new E2 stock?

[@Doublezzranch]

@TexasNationalist1836 : If I remember correctly, it's just a swap of the rifle. It was a life time ago I did this, then my FAL love affair took over & finally my SCAR17S LOL. Hope that stock works out for you, 🇺🇸 Happy 4th 🪖

[@txoilfield]

@@TexasNationalist1836 Yes you can.

[@legrande1980]

Does anyone else find the music playing in the background, highly annoying??? 🤔

[@mickvonbornemann3824]

The muzzle does seem to climb less on the Italian one even the the M14 also seems to have a muzzle device too.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

That tri-compensator muzzle device, as Beretta called it, was a superb design which markedly reduced muzzle climb when the rifle was used in select-fire mode. Although perhaps no rifle chambered for it can be considered easy to fire in full auto, the BM-59 was easier than the competition, which is saying something. The muzzle device on the M-14 is a flash-hider, and doesn't really do much to tame muzzle rise.

[@mickvonbornemann3824]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 By all reports the recoil buffer on the FG42 really smooths that gun out so that it fires the full velocity 7.92 round so well it’s even apparently controllable in fully auto use. Now imagine a full velocity military rifle that has both the FG42 recoil buffer & the BM59 muzzle device. I have a feeling such a rifle might manage 7.62 NATO in full auto mode.

[@rexfrommn3316]

The U.S. Army in the 1950's should have adopted the the Belgian FN FAL rifle chambered in the excellent 7x43mm British intermediate round. The engineering specifications for this hard hitting intermediate British cartridge were superior to anything the United States Army fielded. The Belgian FN FAL rifle evolved into an excellent service rifle used by over 70 countries for their military service rifle. Pigheaded Americans refused to admit that the Belgian FN FAL rifle chambered in the British 7x43mm cartridge was the very best weaponry for American soldiers going into combat.

[@Inflorescensse]

But isn’t the m-14 gas system more reliable with variable ammo and temperatures than BM and probably the FAL.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

The BM is so overgassed (AK style) that's practically impossible for it to not cycle, and the FAL has a gas regulator.

[@richardjefferies221]

Where in South Carolina was this filmed?

[@aaronjohnson7581]

Thought about grabbing one, I like the oddballs

[@Axemantitan]

Did this guy really say that the bend in the M1s op rod was due to the bayonet? (It was from the switch from .276 to .30-06.) He then said that the BM-59 was direct-impingement. (It's a long-stroke piston, just like the M1 Garand.) He also mispronounced Kalashnikov as Kalishnikov. Is he really claimed to be a firearms expert?

[@ibfubar]

A BM-59 would be a sweet giveaway! Just saying! 🤙🍻

[@WinterSkyyy]

I'm glad we chose the m14 because it led us to the m-16!

[@joellelinden7079]

Does the beretta and the m14 have the same magazine

[@matteoorlandi856]

Nope

[@georgesheffield1580]

REMF Generals ( and Colornels ) decided on the M 14 not the grunts

[@eltenda]

The fal it's awesome but the bm59 comes second...i has it as issue rifle in italy

[@alucardtepes4420]

you can almost always count on the military to pick wrong. these are all fine weapons though

[@anthonytv1952]

DO YOU KNOW THAT BERETTA MADE ARMS SINCE XVI CENTURY ?

[@robertspeicher5047]

Modify, hindsight, the Garand to use 10 clips in the planned 276 caliber. Reason...Mags...get empty...have to police the mags and RELOAD. The clips...single use....Just insert a full clip. When, in WWII, ammo resupply was get more clips. No, " pausing" to refill magazines. I remember , reading about " preppers" and how they had " STACKS" of full magazines. Imagine " bugging out " with a few hundred magazines. The logistics....LOL...IT IS FUNNY

[@alanbrooke3237]

68 the BM59 I saw years ago had a pistol grip. Could you explain this?

[@neutronalchemist3241]

The ones with a folding stock had pistol grip.

[@alanbrooke3237]

@@neutronalchemist3241 Then one I saw was not a folding stock, maybe a variant.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

@@alanbrooke3237 The so called "Nigerian" version had a wooden pistol handle.

[@alanbrooke3237]

@@neutronalchemist3241 thanks!

[@user-oi1pi7cf5n]

Clips feed magazines, magazines feed weapons.

[@niravramdarie9898]

The FN Fal would've still been the best choice instead of the m14.

[@brianmelo8892]

When did discount Sylvester Stallone start working for Classic Firearms?

[@jasonsierchio1167]

Now I want a 308

[@Jon-xf9cu]

I had a FAL liked it better than my HK 91 the 308 round is better than 223 Had many types the armor light far superior to the colts. Ak 47 with match grade barrel and folding bypod extremely acrute. As good as a 7mm mag for accuracy at very long ranges. I think the M1 Garand was highly overrated. Had a Thompson good for 100 yards

[@ianstein7603]

"And this is?" He's like "Oh, that's just a dumby. Simulates the auto switch on an M14" (Oh that was close, I almost got in trouble for having a full auto M14 lol)

[@RemoWilliams-hy4vc]

Una volta era così, andavi in Beretta con un manico di scopa e loro lo trasformavano in un'arma da fuoco. Ora vai con un'arma da fuoco e loro la trasformano in un manico di scopa...

[@frankmoore7130]

Hahaha! M14 should have been a T-48 ( Fal)

[@humorlessclown]

God but I wanted to see one with the removable grenade launcher/comp 😞☹️

[@Mothball556]

Irrelevant. The AR15 was going to replace whatever battle rifle they adopted as the age of battle rifles was over.

[@quietus13]

The M-14 is way overly derided by people who've never used one. It's not optimal in the 21st century but it's still quite capable. For the money there are definitely better options today but the disparity is no where near as large as many would have you think.

[@Jay-kf3od]

No. It sucked. It literally owns the distinction for having the shortest run i production as the US standard rifle. Even shorter than the Krag. If it was half as good as you think it is it would've stayed in production longer.

[@mcqueenfanman]

@@Jay-kf3od Yet it was still used in recent conflicts that required rifleman distance shots.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

In trials the disparity was not that large. Unfortunately the M14 was also quite complicate to mass-manufacture, and due to that, the issued rifles quite sucked, and were also slow to produce. The main reason the M16 was adopted was that there was no way to chug out enough M14 for the Vietnam war.

[@quietus13]

@@Jay-kf3od have you used one in any serious endeavor or are you speaking from ignorance? Its short service life had nothing to do with its effectiveness, it was simply used in the wrong role. They tried to shoehorn it to replace multiple different firearms from sub machine guns to light machine guns. Obviously it failed. With a full power cartridge it is much better suited to a DMR role than general issue. By the beginning of Vietnam it became apparent that an intermediate power cartridge in a lighter package needed to be used for select fire, general issue instead, particularly in jungle warfare. But the M-14 rifle itself, if used in the proper context is perfectly sound.

[@janshaw2132]

When the channel spokesman should have just let the knowledge man speak.

[@jeff7.629]

BM59, what the M1 should have been from the beginning. The M14 should have been the FAL or the AR10. The Ordnance department hampered/sabotaged both developments.

[@michaelbarfield528]

Bureaucrats.....

[@Rrgr5]

The AR-10 should've been the AR-18 from the beginning.

[@michaelbarfield9406]

@@Rrgr5 Entrenched Bureaucrats.......

[@futurespeak9648]

Guns go boom boom "plink"