Why I Despise the M14...

Sig Romeo5 Compact Red Dot Sight amzn.to/2KLPDy8
Sig Bravo3 Sight amzn.to/2LpZ46S
AXIL Earmuffs Tactical amzn.to/2PIrFJV
Foam Rifle and Pistol Rest amzn.to/2mIjHSr
Efect Military Tool amzn.to/3mgFxHm
Armorer's Manual amzn.to/2G5FRm2
SAS Amazon Store: www.amazon.com...
Patreon Page: / smallarmssolutions
Donate To SAS: donorbox.org/d...
Centurion Discount Codes:
Other/Misc: Code SAS10 for 10% off
Rifles: Code SASRIFLE for 3% off
Uppers/Lowers: SASUPPLWR for 5% off
G96 - Code SAS10 - 10% off
bit.ly/2INZpgi
Manta Products - Code BAR20 - 20% off
bit.ly/2IIzLK9
Challenge Targets - Code SAS - 10% off steel targets
www.challenget...
Facebook - bit.ly/2INZa4S
Website - smallarmssolutions.com
Instagram - SmallArmsSolutions
PO Box 298, Cypress, TX 77410

[@popuptarget7386]

Just a thought for all those who post "I knew/was a vietnam vet that hated to lose my M14 to a M16". What you train with is what you prefer. Read some books- troops who had trapdoor springfields hated the Krag rifle originally, till they had experience with it. Troops with 1903 springfields didnt want to trade in their trusty target rifles for fancy new M1s at first. Troops complain, always.

[@sabretom7594]

It’s a soldier’s god given right to bitch.

[@jackdundon2261]

Yet the m9 was NEVER fully adopted.... Sometimes, new isn't better.

[@sandrobruni7575]

You got a source on this? I'd love to look into this, because it's not surprising at all. We just haven't heard about it recently because we've used the same platform for over 50 years

[@jackdundon2261]

@@sandrobruni7575 goto the vets home.... Ask the Vietnam vets.... I suppose, you could goto the library and look at those things called books too.

[@jamesday7344]

When are we gonna break for chow?

[@flavius3896]

I am just an old 11B grunt, not an expert on firearms. I spent the winter of 1967-68 in the 2nd Inf Div on the Korean DMZ pulling guard in a foxhole every night. Our bunker/trenches were maybe 20-30 meters from the fence. For some reason the army put sapling fences in front of our positions and barbed wire everywhere else. The sapling fence provided nice cover for North Koreans to fire on our positions. We had semi-automatic M-14s. A few of the M-14 automatics with a bi-pod. Our basic load was five 20 round magazines and a couple of frags. We stuffed our mags in the pockets of the flak jacket. I was in a couple of firefights on the DMZ. I think they did not give us more ordnance because we would have shot up the fence. :-) Not liking the cold weather and freezing every night, I 1049ed to Vietnam and spent the rest of 1968 there. I was assigned to the 1st Cav and was issued a new M-16. Basic and infantry AIT was all M-14. The M16 I got was the first time I had touched one. We went to the range to zero our weapon. Then sat down and figured out how to field strip and clean them and I was on my way to I Corps. Our basic load was something like twenty 20 round magazines plus more rounds in clips, lots of frags, and a claymore. I was really shocked at how little ammo we had on the Korean DMZ! My impression? The M-14 was very heavy. Luckily I did not have to do patrols on the DMZ in Korea, so it did not matter much. When I picked up the M-16 I smiled because it was so light. Of course the ammo was light too. I was asst M-60 gunner, so I had to carry belts of ammo for the M-60 as well. So we carried a lot of weight on patrols. The M-16 was automatic which we used most of the time firing short bursts. Most firefights were close range in dense foliage. Recon by fire was common. The M-16 was great. I kept it clean to avoid jams. We put the plastic silverware wrapper from C-rations over the muzzle. I love the AR-15 platform because of the modular design and being easily modified. Today I am amazed at the knowledge of our troops about weapons. Even though we had M-16s in Vietnam, I look back on that experience and think about how primitive the conditions were. I think we were closer to fighting with spears and clubs. I wonder if people see Vietnam videos and think that we went back to barracks, showers and mess halls at the end of the day. We slept on the ground every day of my tour. Our "rear"was guarding some LZ in a bunker for a few days "rest", but still pulling ambushes and LPs. That's all I got! Thanks.

[@vincentlok8894]

Wow, thanks for that amazing insight! Glad you made it back!

[@isaacespapa1]

My father was in Korea as well patrolling the 38th. He was there in 67-68 as well. His name is Joe Soto.

[@RadioDX3]

Great story!

[@daffyduck7336]

@Sandra Kirkwold On my tour in nam , Apr 65 to Dec. 66 I never took a shower, we washed up in a helmet or a ammo can, and we did not dine in a mess hall , we sat on the edge of a dirt ditch fighting the bugs off from the mess kit while trying to eat. Our so called barracks were a GP tent with drit floor which at times turned to mud. at night when you did get some sleep (4 to 3 hours) the rats would run over you and at times give you a little nip to let you know they had been there ,the insects would bits on your eyelids and in the morning the pus from the bits would harden and seal the lids shut, I went a 2nd. time Mar. 68 to July 69 during this tour my section was made up of 6 to 9 marine (some times) when I got out of Nam in 69 I had one dead and five shot and blasted to hell! We have saying in the Marine "If you haven't walked the walk...then shut the hell up" oh ya one more thing I am a retired Msgt. USMC

[@DaddyLongLegs44]

Thanks for serving sir

[@emmetband4931]

I was with First Recon in Chu Lai and used the M 14 until January of 1967 when we were given the M 16. On my first patrol with the M 16 it jammed, I presume because of the ball powder being used early on. I went back to using my old M 14 until I returned to the states in July. I had no problems with the M 14. It was heavier and had more recoil but was always reliable.

[@williamd3141]

I know the feeling. The first issued M-16 had a lot of problems. The M-14 never jammed.

[@Codevil.]

Yea, nither dose a SKS, or AK-47 , the actual reason for the "problem" with the M-16 , was the end user's doctrine of a different weapon system, is the most polight way to word it.

[@spearfisherman308]

@@williamd3141 the m14. Fails when dropped in the mud the m16 doesn’t the problem was the ammo.

[@CrniWuk]

@@spearfisherman308 There have been a lot of issues, from the early designs, to the doctrine and the fact that it was simply rushed in to service. Which, honestly isn't anything new. Pretty normal when you introduce a new weapon system during war time. Particularly if it's not really based on anything that's already in use.

[@meastwood05]

I was trained on the M14 50 years ago in Army Basic. I hated it. It was heavy, always dirty and hard to clean. Of course I used the M16 in VN (25th Inf). I'm 71 now and own a M1A. I love it because I don't crawl in the mud any more and only carry it from my car to the shooting bench.

[@Scientist_Salarian]

There are so many guns like that. I love ‘em, but thank God I don’t have to actually fight with them.

[@antoniojr.pejaner3277]

How many battes have fought in vietnam with your m16 sir?

[@skychief399]

J Mark Eastwood ABOUT YOUR M1A: I like your comment. I’m generally in the same boat with you. I did my Army Basic on the North Fort side of Fort Lewis, WA in 1967 - M14 in hand. Prior to Basic I’d had a chance to become a little familiar with the M1 Garand. And that’s another story for another time so I’ll flash forward to the present except to say I didn’t mind the weight and size of the M14 in Basic because of my experience with the M1 and my 30.06 deer rifle, a Winchester Model 70. (I’ve still got the Mod 70. Last time I went hunting it went with me. Love it!) Today I’m now seriously considering buying the M1A, for like you say, to “carry it only from my car to the shooting bench.” You are the first M1A owner I’ve had a chance to ask these questions. There’s four parts: 1. What model of the M1A do you have? 2. What do you like about your M1A? 3. What do you not like about your M1A? 43. Would you recommend to your best buddy they buy the M1A? Thanks for your reply. I’m looking forward to what your have to say. Best regards,

[@mickeyraven22]

@kevin pierson I own both :)

[@mickeyraven22]

@kevin pierson I have money to waste ;)

[@kickinitoutdoors5782]

I love the M14 as an Infantry man in Afghanistan, I carried one in scout platoon with an optic for the role of precise fires. I used the rifle for as a somewhat precision rifle that could acquire multiple targets, it was amazing in that support role in scout squad. I am however glad I didn't have to carry it as a main battle rifle in a jungle, it was a good weapon in the wrong philosophy of use.

[@Opachki69420]

@@surq0784 its a shame the sr-25/m110 are so expensive compared to the m14, because its such a remarkable rifle and the design improved on the m14 by so much, but for 5k per rifle, its just waaaay too much(i could see like 3k for a rifle of that quality, but the rarity of them makes the price just too much)

[@Opachki69420]

@@surq0784 i didnt ignore any of that, i dont think it costs 5k in labor/material cost to achieve that tbh(to clarify, the military has a tendency to overbudget on things like this, so its safe to assume the rifle is about 10-15% cheaper than they pay for it, at least)

[@Opachki69420]

@@surq0784 after looking again, it seems to have come down a few hundred dollars, so in the next 5 years i could see it leveling out around 3000-3500 depending on the state of manufacturing costs in the future(if some anti gun laws get rolled back we could see a dramatic change in price all over the place, so heres to hoping something good can come in the future)

[@rustyshackleford17]

The m14 is a terrible general issue infantry rifle. As a DMR, it wasn't bad. Especially since 308ARs were still having growing pains.

[@nocturnalrecluse1216]

@@rustyshackleford17 Depends on the conflict. In total war it would be lethal. Against guerrillas, not so much.

[@Mick028]

Many of us in the UK have always been rather miffed that the .280 British was rejected; I often wonder with the passing of time just how much R&D there would have been in the cartridge since its 1947 introduction. We can only dream what Eugene Stoner could have done with the .280 and the AR10 at the time.

[@RaderizDorret]

I've got one for you: what if we not only adopted .280 British for the rifle, but added a lengthened case variant (say 50mm case length) for belt-fed MGs like the MAG?

[@Mick028]

@@RaderizDorret I imagine the bean counters and logistic guys wouldn't like the idea as they believe, "one size fits all" which the rest of all know is BS!

[@PBScourge]

@@RaderizDorretcheck out the 6.5 Grendel. The Americans basically reinvented the .280 Brit. Heh

[@PBScourge]

@@RaderizDorretI believe they intended to use the .280 for everything, full MG and rifle.

[@mrsquishyboots]

6.5 grendel and 6.8 are great upgrades for the ar15....the 280 would have been great. I wish I had a roller delayed 280 carbine with 12.5 in barrel

[@stevemorrill1524]

I fired an M-14 just once, on a range at Ft. Knox.when I was a tank crewman. I had also once shot an M-1 back in the days of huge cloth targets and the "pit" where you took turns hoisting up those targets and then spotting for the shooters. An M-14 was, near as I could tell, just an M-1 with a box magazine. Ho-hum. In Germany I was given an M-3 submchine gun (the infamous "grease gun") because that was a weapon you could keep inside a tank. I was less than thrilled; the effective range of the M-3 was six inches longer if you pulled out the wire stock. In Vietnam - and now an OCS grad assigned to the artilery. I had an M-16, an M-79 grenade launcher, and a .45 pistol. I looked pretty bad-ass but mostly I carried all that (and a radio) in hopes that at least one would work.

[@Zulutime44]

I was issued my M14 rifle in March 1962. It was brand new marked Springfield Armory, I qualified Expert with it. Needless to say, it did the job.

[@clv603]

The title should be "Why I Despise Bureaucrats...". Well-made informative content. Thank you!

[@Dominik189]

Yep!

[@richmcintyre1178]

Right on! I have a 1964 Guns Magazine that reviews the "New" civilian AR-15 from Colt. It talks about the testing the M-16 is going through with the military in Vietnam. We all have heard the stories of how the tests were rigged in favor of the M-14 and all I can say is that God for General LeMay from the Air Force, of all people for pushing for the 5.56 round in the M-16 platform. The bureaucrats screwed up the into of the M-16 but in the end the problems were solved and the basic rifleman ended up with a weapon that would keep him alive.

[@willgillies5670]

or "We shoulda went with the FAL like Winnie Churchill said" lol

[@TheSulross]

In addition to the bureaucracy, though, there is also an egotistical general that wielded too much power in his single-handed ability to shove the .308 down NATO's throat, and the M14 down the throat of the bulk of the US military

[@knlazar08]

And really badly so. There is nothing here that has anything to do with the weapon itself, but just blaming an inanimate object for the failures of the US Army Ordinance board. The rifle provided what they demanded, but their demand was stupid. Might just as well say computers suck because Bill Gates is a crooked a$$hole!

[@hondot8740]

I wanna say that you have posted the most heart felt honest post I have ever seen. I'm a retired SGM over 23yrs in the Army 16 with Special Operations. I loved the post when people talk so passionately about our soldiers gives me hope! Thank you!

[@Tigerheart01]

Funny thing is, a lot of AR10s are now getting into units in the role of DMR (Designated Marksman Rifle). We're finding that the penetrating power of the 7.62 is welcome in units when they DO need some accurate long range firepower or the stopping power needed at checkpoints and gates for stopping vehicles (through engine blocks and windshields). The 5.56 is still doing fine, but the USA isn't done with the 7.62 as a rifle cartridge yet.

[@lardomcfarty9866]

Preferably with an ar10 or G3 though

[@rustys.1070]

​@@lardomcfarty9866m14 and fal get kicked out due to accuracy requirements

[@LordDigz12]

Imagine a Garand in the late 30s with a detachable magazine chambered in quasi intermediate 276 pederson. Would’ve been light years beyond what anyone else had.

[@boomstick1584]

Sincerely, I tried. Just couldn’t imagine it? (really I didn’t want to google 276 Pederson)

[@sandrobruni7575]

If not for logistic restraints, we might have adopted either the Pedersen rifle or the M1 in .276 Pedersen, which was the originally intended cartridge for the M1. When they had to re chamber for .30-06, the capacity was reduced from 10 to 8.

[@vampyr2936]

What about a Garand in 6.5×55 Swede, pretty much what Garand originally wanted

[@iamAwesomo1994]

hell even a mini 14 type of design

[@justinneilson1263]

@@sandrobruni7575 "Logistic restraints" more like MacArthur being a fuckin penny pincher and complaining that it would be logistically hard to completely replace all the 30-06 with 276 Pederson

[@jeffmccrea9347]

I saw a guy on the Military Channel refer to the M-14 in full auto mode as having the 1st shot on the mark, the second shot a little high and anything after that was anti aircraft fire referring to the rate of climb.

[@spvillano]

Actually, a little high meant just short of aiming for high altitude bombers, the third was toward the high altitude bombers and geosynch satellites. It wasn't only climb, it had mass enough to stay sort of down, but it bounced all over the damned place. So, when I needed MG fire, I had the 249 or 240 guy suppress them, the DMR M14/M1a firer suppressed them via punching a nice hole in the SOB's. The USMC is getting rid of their M249's in favor of the M27 rifle, which is both an automatic rifle and DMR in a tad heavier 5.56 round.

[@bobbyraejohnson]

Ya I also watched the military channel not the best info good on basics but this channel is way more detailed.

[@44hawk28]

Yes the M14 to a lazy ass that won't practice with it is very difficult to shoot in falato. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. As a matter of fact with a little bit of practice almost anybody who weighs more than about 160 lb can shoot them relatively accurately in full auto.

[@boondocker7964]

True, very true, semi-auto is the way to get accurate shots on target.

[@boydgrandy5769]

I could never fire the M-14 in full auto from the shoulder without the muzzle climbing to the heavens. In a sling carry, with the left hand on top of the heat shield, you could hold it relatively parallel to the ground without the muzzle rising more than an inch or two, but it was then a grazing fire weapon. Of course, my primary arm was a mark 48 torpedo, so needing to shoot an M-14 was an indication that we were in deep shit on the boat.

[@apayne2703]

This is what makes America GREAT!. As a Vietnam/Cambodia combt vet I was a M-60 gunner. I loved that baby. Later on my main weapon was the M2, .50 Cal. I was with the Army in Vietnam. Later, when I got home and couldn't find work, I joined the Marine Corps. We had to Qualify with the M-14 at that time. Granted, It is a wee bit in the heavy side. The ammo is heavy, as are the magazines. When it comes to distant shooting, 300 yards and beyond, the M14 is very accurate. That is why the Nayv Seals use it as one of thier simper weapons. A Marine sniper in vietnam dropped 16 NVA soldiers, one night, with no problems.But he was a Marine and iknows how to shoot. This si my opinon, and right now I wish I had one. We can agree to Disagree.

[@TheRealJeff984]

The M1 was also originally supposed to be chambered in .276 Pederson. A cartridge with very similar ballistics as .280 British however right before it entered production they forced John Garand to rechamber the M1 for 30-06.

[@PxThucydides]

I read somewhere that that was McArthur. He noticed that there were 500 million rounds of .30 left over from ww1 and he said, like hell we are going to waste those and go to a new cartridge.

[@rustyshackleford17]

@@PxThucydides When you delve into MacArthur, it becomes very obvious very quickly he was a narcissistic moron. But the US Military has a long history of these odd decisions. The reason why the 1:7 twist was adopted by the US was because they had a crap ton of 70-odd grain tracers left over.

[@allenatkins2263]

It made sense at the time to stick with the 30-06. The country was in the middle of the depression and army budgets were cut to the bone. The army had a stockpile of 30-06 ammo, the Browning machinegun, and the BAR, as well as the 03 Springfield all, used 30-06. This made less of a supply problem.

[@ryanwinkelman1781]

@@rustyshackleford17 MacArthur was definitely a narcissistic moron. Patton was probably a narcissist but he was definitely not a moron. If we had let Patton loose we would have gotten to Berlin before the Russians.

[@spvillano]

@@ryanwinkelman1781 like when they let Patton loose before and his vehicles ran out of fuel? An armored battle without gas and BB's isn't a battle, it's getting your forces slaughtered.

[@larrybomber83]

I don't agree that the M-14 sucks, but I think this was a very in-depth, complete, intelligent, and pretty straight forward video. Well done!

[@thomastoups3451]

I was a volunteer in the (old) South African Army. We were issued 7.62 NATO FN FALs and the receivers were all pinned so that the selector's full auto position was blocked. The author is absolutely correct about the difficulty of controlling a 7.62 MBR on full auto. Even 7.62 general purpose machine-guns are (somewhat) difficult to accurately control if fired from the shoulder, though their (roughly) 25 pound weight makes it much easier than a (roughly) ten pound Main Battle Rifle on full auto. I own a semi-auto FAL and have owned a semi-auto M14 variant. I believe the M14 is a fine rifle, but still give the nod to the FAL. It's all about the correct tool for a given situation.

[@davewolf8869]

Like I say during an MG Shoot I got to shoot a full auto G3 (308 battle rifle) and it was useless... I could barely keep it on point, and engaging multiple unfriendlies was impossible. It was a fun waste of ammunition but realistically completely unpractical. I also shot an MG34 which was a blast, but without that three point heavy tripod it was essentially the same issue.

[@rc59191]

Grandpa had one in Vietnam when he was a combat engineer said he loved it.

[@rwsmith7638]

When you put all of those problems that have been treated individually into one lump, it makes a really sad story.

[@mtwolf13a]

I went into the Army in 1966 and combat-trained on the M-14 and loved it. That is why I and a friend who was a Marine both own one today. OK M1A.

[@Meditech509]

My father was in Vietnam on the beaches of Bien Hoa during the Tet Offensive in 68. He was discharged in fall of 69, I was born in 71. Yrs later I asked him about the war when I was 15. He pulled out five massive slide carousels and reels and reels of 8mm film of the pictures and movies he made there. One picture is this young 21 yr old punk (him) outside his sand bunker opening up a wood crate and grabbing his brand new M-16. He said he absolutely loved that rifle and it was superior to the M-14 in every way. He also said he felt he was the luckiest man alive to come home from that terrible war. Then again yrs later I purchased an AR15 when I was 21. I remember showing to my father and almost cried when he tore it apart on the kitchen table like he had done it a thousand times. LOL. He put it back together loved the improvements that had been made went out and shot it off his back deck and said that was enough of that. My father says to this day he does not understand why the comments section on Yahoo News, when an article comes up about the M4 so many people comment on how the current military should go back to the M-14. He just shakes his head. Love you Dad.

[@greenmagic8ball198]

meditech bUt ThE m4 HaS nO sToPpInG pOwEr!!! -M14 loving idiots

[@skepticalbadger]

Your dad sounds awesome.

[@Meditech509]

@JonMac. He is totally awesome. Was scared to death of him as kid to to him having a bit of a heavy hand. But as I grew up he became my best friend. Here is another cool story. My wife was a 4th grade teacher and was writing lesson plans to explain to the kids Veterans Day. My father could still wear his uniform from Nam so took all those films and slides to her school and did a presentation for her class wearing full dress (he is and E5). She came home that day from class and said they had to move him to the gym because the whole school wanted to see it.

[@Meditech509]

@ EdHe is quite guarded with them so I doubt it. He had them all converted to digital and DVD and the photo company offered him money for rights to copies and he turned them down. I'll ask him though.

[@DEATH_TO_TYRANTS]

@@Meditech509 Thank you for sharing that with us. I'm subscribing to your channel just in case he let's you share the videos/pics with us.

[@joea5222]

Excellent video. I get very angry every time I hear the story about how the Army sabotaged the introduction of the M-16 so it would fail… A lot of soldiers died needlessly because of that. My question is this, was anyone ever held to account for that? I would think some people should’ve gone to jail.

[@charlessouza6475]

I, too, trained on the M14, but was issued an XM16E1 in RVN. We cursed it as a constantly jamming, hard to clean (recoil lugs collected layers of solid carbon) and fairly fragile. It was many years before I learned that the main problem was the 5.56mm ammo that had been loaded with the wrong propellant (a money-saving move, since the proper gunpowder was more expensive). Now, fifty years later, my initial critique of the 5.56mm round (its anemic .22-caliber slug), was correct. The Army recently adopted an entirely different weapon system which fires a 6.8mm bullet from a bi-metal case which is practically the same length as the 7.62mm NATO.

[@alexfresel6198]

soldiers died needlessly because they were sent to a war to fight peasants that 98% supported the Communists because unlike everyone else, the Communists supported land reform.

[@45calibermedic]

​@charlessouza6475 Anemic isn't fragmenting and causing severely traumatic wounds 200 yards and in with ball ammo and effective wounds beyond that, lol. The Army wanted a wonder weapon that'd help them win long-range skirmishes in Afghanistan and penetrate armor effectively. Of course, the armor penetration hopes were disappointed, but they did create a highly capable modern battle rifle system with companion machine gun. There's no way that they'll get rid of the assault rifle, though. The future is in fielding either or both at once depending on operational demands. Noticing a lot of long engagements? More Sigs. More medium-close engagements? More M4's and M16's. No need to drop the 5.56 until we re-learn the lessons of WW2 (again, counting early Vietnam).

[@md_vandenberg]

@@charlessouza6475 Question: if .22 is so anemic, would you be willing to be shot with it? If the answer is "no", then kindly discard your Fuddlore opinion. Dealing with people like you for decades has gotten old.

[@guylo88]

The army didn't adopt the henry repeating rifle for similar reasons in the Civil War.

[@ventroid4473]

guy l Yeah the attitude of “no we can’t have this new technology we need marksmanship only” has been in the US military leadership for a long time. The same thing has been said about bolt actions, semi autos, etc.

[@rodyates4771]

Custer was taught a costly lesson in 1876 when he went up against Henry repeaters versus his single shot Springfield’s.

[@Elc22]

Travis Tucker I would like to agree with that sentiment. the Henry, as well as it was an improvement where it gave much higher rates of fire, was a very flawed system that could only handle cartridges that were somewhat underpowered. the action just was not strong enough, and was one of the main reasons why other lever action rifles of different design eclipsed it in the end. though one thing to remember, is that even if the round is underpowered, the sheer volume of fire from a Henry is almost always going to win you a fight against something like a trapdoor Springfield.

[@leonardwei3914]

To be fair, the logistics capabilities of the U.S. Army after the civil war was limited, particularly for a limited standing frontier army.

[@aznfvr21]

The Spencer was way more field reliable and wasn't prone to jamming like the Henry with its exposed magazine which is right underneath the barrel.

[@johnstewart5826]

I trained with the M-14 at PI then used the rifle in Vietnam. Great weapon always reliable never jammed! I still shoot the the Springfield M-14 today and wouldn’t trade it for anything!

[@ursaferrarius]

I see what you did there "John Stewart"

[@WarMachine550]

Militaries have long been attempting to replace every weapon in their arsenal with one do-it-all magic stick. It never works. The gear must adapt to the mission. Where the m14 fell flat in close quarters jungle or urban fighting it excels in long range mountainous areas (afghanistan).

[@ironberserk2175]

Exactly.

[@andrebredell3293]

I second the fact. I fired the M14 at NTC, Orlando in JRTC in 79, but qualified with the M16A1 at PI in 1980. In the battle of Khe Sahn, the Marines of India. Co, 26 Marines had the M14.

[@daskriegsman7013]

Personally I don't think the M14 is a terrible weapon, just wasn't the right rifle for the environment it was in.

[@45calibermedic]

I would say, more specifically, it found itself in the wrong time. It would have fit in perfectly during WW2 and been the best of the autoloading battle rifles present. After WW2, however, its entire type was outdated in the role of main infantry rifle. Nevertheless, battle rifles and accurized versions thereof in 7.62 NATO continue to make good choices for marksman duty and increasing the squad's effective range and hitting power alongside the main rifle in an intermediate cartridge. They have their place.

[@romes9465]

It was dogshit

[@greasedog]

M-14. Right rifle, wrong fight.

[@45calibermedic]

@@greasedog can you elaborate on that idea?

[@Thinishwolf]

It wasn't only in the wrong war but had massive quality control problems that made it even worse, since Springfield had subcontracted production manufacturing companies some who never worked on guns before, and most didn't get a good deal so they just wanted to pump them out and be over with the rifle, to not go out of business because of the losses producing the rifle. Not good for a military rifle your men depends on to stay alive

[@AccordionJoe1]

Back in the day, I was issued an M-14 during basic training. First time I went to "order arms," my synthetic rifle stock and that of many of my fellow soldiers, cracked. We were then issued wooden stocks. On the rifle range, my M-14 jammed once or twice with every two or three magazines, despite my cleaning my weapon meticulously every day. On the plus side, I shot "expert" and had no trouble knocking down silhouette targets at 400 meters with the M-14.

[@markmorell5760]

Probably the worn out magazines.

[@williamaprewittjr337]

My father was trained with the M14 he loved it. When he was sent to Vietnam, he was with the 25th inf. When the unit was issued the M16 the soldiers were complaining that the M16 jammed more than the M14. At the time when my father was company clerk he still had his M14 and a lot of his fellow soldiers wanted his weapon, however he wouldn’t give it up even though he had only two magazines for the weapon. I own a M1-A and I love it as well as my father did. I have no complaints.

[@donaldwhitfill632]

very interesting and concise story; once again illustrating the "good old boy system" is not the way to be efficient and effective.

[@michaelblacktree]

The M14 is a good rifle. But it's not suitable as a basic infantry rifle. It's better suited as a DMR. That said, the shady politics of the Army Ordnance Corps is absolutely sickening.

[@fsen1999]

>dmr" >usually more than 2moa

[@willb8684]

m110 better in every way

[@rippspeck]

My dad served in the Bundeswehr back in the day when they used the G3. From what he's told me, it sounds like said rifle is just as unwieldy as the M14. Is it possible that the FAL was the only 7.62mm weapons suitable as a basic infantry rifle?

[@fsen1999]

maybe ur dad just has noodle arms friend

[@gsxr1189]

Except DMR's should probably be accurate unlike the M14.

[@rangefinder3538]

Chris,this is a classic dissertation on the inadequate M14 and the corruption of U.S Ordinance Corp. Well done that man!

[@johnwilliams9240]

The British army used the M15/16 in the Confrontation with Indonesia before the US forces inVietnam. The ammunition supplied was that specified by its designer Stoner. The weapon was a success and later used by certain troops in the Aden withdrawal. John

[@mastercheif98612]

My father loved his m14 far more than the m16a1 he was issued, But I suppose he is a product of his time.

[@QuentinQuatermass]

Thanks for the pull-no-punches video, Chris! In Basic Training 1966 I trained with the M14 and it was issued to me my first 18 months. Then in 1968 I used both rifles for a while in Vietnam. After Nam, 1969 in Korea, again I had to lug around the M14. Like you I greatly preferred the M16 though I think the M14 is beautiful. Perfect rifle for parades and honor guard but go to war with the M16/M4! Ironically, I qualified three times in three years with the M14 while M16 qualification fell through the cracks, I never qualified with it. Didn't matter, what an easy rifle to shoot accurately. My brother went into Basic the summer of 1969 and by then training was with the M16A1. Today I have three Garand action rifles, the M1A Scout, M1 Carbine and Mini-14. And Stoner rifles, the AR-10A and a few AR-15s. That pretty much covers all the (rifle) bases.

[@Arbbym9er]

10:40 The reason they used the 8 round clip over the box mag was 100% due to logistics. Clips were extremely lightweight, cheap, and easy to make in comparison to 20 rd magazines, and during a time where everything was rationed, the use of an 8 rd clip was far more beneficial and pragmatic in the grand scheme of things. Great video, but the idea that, the US used the 8 rd clip because we had tradition, and didn't want our soldiers wasting ammunition isn't true.

[@richardpowell4281]

I understand your sentiment but if we step back for a second and think. Yeah a stripper clip is less steel than a box magazine. But would it be over time? Consider some of the guys that fought from Normandy until Berlin, many of them with the same rifle throughout. How many dozens upon dozens of stripper clips would they have loaded and fired during that time. How many people in the middle of firefights do you think were picking up stripper clips and reloading them to be used again? Also even if you're right about everything you could still have a fixed 20 round magazine that could be loaded using stripper clips.

[@tomkelley7174]

@mrsanch1ful You are correct. US had tens of millions of .30-06 rounds sitting around with nothing to do so the Garand design was re-chambered for .30-06.

[@snowflakemelter1172]

You would have a point if magazines were disposable but over time millions of clips must have been lost on the battlefield whereas soldiers are trained to keep , clean and look after magazines.

[@wildrootvnam1645]

The Army wasn't the only one who didn't care about Vietnam. The Commanders didn't care whether we won the war or lost! Spent 26 months (68-70) in helicopters in Vietnam and had access to just about any weapon I wanted. I preferred the M=16 because of close combat when we would get shot down in elephant grass or jungle areas. I have a soft spot for the M-14 however because I won the marksmanship trophy with mine in basic training at Ft Leonard Wood in 67. Your'e correct about the M-14 being uncontrollable in fully auto though! That darn thing would pick you up off the ground! The M-16 would jam once in a while but that would be due to the heavy sand our rotor blades would kick up. Thank you for your excellent video.

[@MrAmptech]

As is typical, we fielded the weapon best suited for our last military campaign. Korea had terrain that was suitable for the M14. My Father was issued a M1 Carbine, a firearm that would have been useful in the streets of Europe but horrible in the open hillsides of Korea.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

The M-1/M-2 Carbine was never designed as a weapon intended for use at long range. It was expressly designed as what modern users would call a personal defense weapon, a light, reasonably handy weapon designed for close-to-near medium range use, inside 200 yards optimally. The problem arose when troops, attracted to its light weight and ease of use, discarded their M-1s in favor of the carbine - even though they were still being called upon to fight enemies in the open, sometimes at medium or longer ranges. An uncle of mine was a U.S. Army infantryman who saw a lot of combat in Korea. He flatly credits the M-1 Garand with saving his life and making it possible for him to return home to his wife and family.

[@Paelorian]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 The M2 Carbine was arguably the most effective American shoulder weapon of it's day, within the effective range of .30 Carbine. It was a low-power, lightweight assault rifle when the alternatives were SMGs firing much less powerful pistol cartridges and M1 Garands. In urban combat especially, I'd want to carry an M2.

[@BaconSlayer69]

The m16 would’ve been very effective if it existed during the Korean War actually 😅

[@int19h]

On the bright side, because of how flawed M14 was, it accelerated the development of M16 - and US ended up with a low-impulse round (5.56) a decade before Soviets did the same upgrade to their AK. If it adopted FAL, I bet it would have stuck with that until 70s or even 80s, like many European countries did.

[@immikeurnot]

I'd argue that the Soviet 5.45 round came about as a result of their studies of 5.56 performance in Vietnam.

[@int19h]

You're right. I mean, eventually someone *would* have been the first to scale down to the 5-6mm range. Might have still been the Soviets - they really needed to do something about the "rainbow trajectory" of 7.62x39. But it would probably happen only after they went into Afghanistan and found it to be a problem there, which would delay it by a decade or so, too.

[@immikeurnot]

The Brits wanted to get into that 6mm range and probably would have if US Ordnance hadn't shoved 7.62x51 on them.

[@ronbates1795]

Why I like the M 14. You have presented a very innformative video here and I find no fault. I joined the Army in 57, took Basic at Ft Chaffee, AR.. I had never fired a centerfire rifle to that point. I was excited to begin rifle training. We drew rifles on the range, not the one we trained with every day... I couldn't hit shit, no where near the paper and I was at least better than that having shot thousands of 22 rounds. Needless to say, my day went to hell with my Sgt screaming and yelling unkind words until he finally took the rifle to show me how to do it. Every round he fired hit the dirt in front of the target frame like mine. The gas nut was loose allowing gas to escape in and bullets fell short at 100 yards. Of course he never apologized to me but the rifle was replaced and I went on to shoot reasonable scores. The point is, I was soured on the mighty M 1 and never liked it from then on. Fast forward to W Germany in 1961 where I was an MP in the 3rd I D when the Berlin Crisis happened and we were issued the M 14. We fired a few rounds to familiarixe and immediately fellin love with the 20 rd mag otherwise rh 2 rifles were pretty much the same. I have never fred a shot in anger in the 12 years I spent active but at annual qualificaation shot hundreds of rounds and had a lot of confidence.. Later I was aassigned to Cp Roberts, CA and acquired a significant supply of 7.62 ammp. A unit on post had the M 14 with the selector for auto fire and the CO there authorized me to draw the rifle anytime I wanted. I took it to the range area fairly often and shot old car bodies and other things on the ranges increasing my overall affection for the M 14 and its effectiveness. I never had to hump it but did the M1 earlier. I never fired it in anger or a jungle environment but if I had to go to combat today I would still want it. I own an AR 15 and love the weapon but I would prefer a rifle that reaches out and touches. It is not my intent to dismiss your information, only to give a different take.

[@BaconSlayer69]

Ur experience is pointless ur just qualifying which is basically target shooting 😅 which equals to actual fighting ur comment is irrelevant

[@williamdwyer3302]

from listening around dinner table as a kid,with a couple of guy's who where there,65-66.they didnt like first generation m16.look at picture difference between 21 min and 23 min.1st gen didn't have forward assist,they found out first rainy season a little dirty, bolt didn't fully chamber round.they got it right after lives were lost.m16 was the right tool for that environment,close quarters.

[@crashoverride4881]

Carried an M14 in Vietnam, I own 2 m 14s. Weapon was most effective if used properly. It's a great weapon.

[@jeffreynelson2660]

I share your opinion. I was in the 5th Division, carried the M14.

[@crashoverride4881]

@@jeffreynelson2660 I was in the 4th Infantry Division

[@jeffreynelson2660]

@@crashoverride4881 I drove a M113 APC and M48 tank, also 11B. It was a turbulent time. The 4th ID took some hard hits back in 67 or so.

[@crashoverride4881]

@@jeffreynelson2660 thanks for your service, and welcome home. I was 11 Bravo, and a 19, Cavalry Scout sniper. Was in country from 68 to 69.

[@jeffreynelson2660]

@@crashoverride4881 I recently visited Paul Allen's museum at Paine Field, Everett, WA, and found that they had an M48 tank cut in half so the public could walk between the halves and see the interior. Very nostalgic.

[@paullynn7994]

Tens of thousands of American soldiers training for Vietnam lost half their hearing due to the M-14 and the military not issuing ear plugs,thousands have never been compensated for their loss.

[@boondocker7964]

Interesting, but, I did '65-'69 in USMC, did RVN '66-'67, carried an M-14 all the time, except the last 6 months in RVN, when I carried an M-16, my hearing now, is pretty good, just an old 0311, wondering why that I am so lucky to have good hearing after never using any hearing attenuating gear ever in RVN or any range situation. Now when ever I use any small engine equipment, I use ear plugs.

[@geraldmiller5232]

in 1969 i took basic training at fort knox. we were the last group to train on the m14. i hated it. it was heavy it was hard to control even in single fire mode. i put a hankerchief against my shoulder to lessen the blow. it had a steel butt plate. i now own an ar 15 rifle. it has a magpul stock and handguard. i now have a rifle i can handle without a large amount of kick to it. i weigh 145 pounds.

[@anthonythomas1735]

I served in the British army for seven years and I loved my FN SLR, I initially liked the SA80 when we finally got them but the problems concerning the SA80 are well known by all, I never got the chance to fire the improved version but I'm told it's a much, much better piece of kit.

[@dontall71]

Sounds like you should rename this why I despise The US Ordinance Corp

[@spvillano]

Since past equals present and future and the first two brothers had one kill the other, obviously all people are no good and we should get rid of them, right?

[@timnell207]

Ordnance, no i

[@worldfamousgi86]

Sort of. But the M14 only exists because of the ordinance corps corruption, and as such is the embodiment of that. I think that's where he's going with that. Not to mention that it fails at everything it was intended to do

[@spvillano]

@@worldfamousgi86 wow! I didn't know that I was dead, as those failure M-14's saved me and my team's ass many times as a DMR. The M-14 was introduced in 1959, the M-16 introduced in 1964, so any corruption you are claiming also requires a fucking time machine.

[@808INFantry11X]

@@spvillano these corruption did happen sir now I wasn't there but there was congressional review the facts are cited you can look it up. I'm infantryman to and I get how weapon system can get a bad rep but in this case it mostly undeserved. If your looking for operational history I use the M4A1 both when I was the Navy and now in the Army I would rather use that over an M14 I'm sorry in the type of warfare that I happening now and coming down the line I want my weapon to be adaptable and despite other attempts to replace the M4 is solid.

[@Hercules1-v9m]

I love both guns but that's just me. Really like the idea of running an M4 with a 1/7 twist and 77 grain bullet. That grain weight in the 5.56 has been proven to be a real man stopper in the MK12 SPR platform.

[@premiercconstruction]

So many replies on other sites from Marines who carried the m14 through nam and loved its power, accuracy, dependability and crushed the enemy...

[@chinesemassproduction]

Delusions, plain and simple. The outcome of Vietnam and its death count on american soldiers should tell you exactly how hard we "crushed" the enemy.

[@noszagh]

I was in Vietnam from late October 1967 to early November 1968 as a truck driver or shotgun on one. We had M-14s. Not practical to move it around in the cab, especially when going through a village.

[@dillmann8862]

George there were plans to reconfigure that rifle ( shorten it) but it never had the chance.

[@larrysr1160]

I carried the M14 for 2 years (1968/1969) and loved it,didn't really care for the M16 although it was a lot lighter

[@zulubeatz1]

Something I recently thought about was that by forcing NATO to use the 7.62 round meant the British Army were using it in the FAL during the troubles in Northern Ireland. The troops were doing essentially a policemans job, and I wonder how many deaths & woundings were caused by the 7.62 passing through walls & vehicles etc. On bloody Sunday, many of the reported casualties were simply in the way of shots that continued way past the intended targets. It is incredible such a powerful rifle was used amongst civilians.

[@haroldlucas1240]

The M-14 was a very good rifle, just like any weapon if you kept it clean it functioned properly. 7.62 was a hard hitting round that we used in Viet Nam in 1965 and 66. Never had any trouble with the weight ( at the time I was 6ft. 190lbs ) it worked fine in the bush or in open field, the Marine Corps used what was available and the M-14 was it until they came up with the .22 caliper rifle. Seems to be a lot of crying about weight. I can't remember Charlie sniveling about the weight of his AK 47. He used what was given to him although we did see a few of them with M-16's acquired from the US Army, never fired and only dropped once.

[@sue08401]

My brother loved his M14 and made sure he had his m14 during his 2 tours there. In the highlands it could hit targets the M16 only dreamed of

[@louoldschool7047]

very accurate rifle using an open sight. once you learned how to use the sight, you can hit anything

[@ChrisGilliamOffGrid]

If I could only have one rifle it would be the M-14. Nuff said.👍

[@JustAnotherPaddy]

Yeah, Carlos Hathcock absolutely hated that m14 rifle. Couldn’t engage multiple targets in the jungle with it. If a few marines had taught the dogs to shoot, this video wouldn’t have had to be made. I liked how he said it was horrible for close quarters, then holds up the Fal and the AR10...and the M16. All about the same length! Yeah, it’s heavy. Grow stronger. Then he said the the m16 gave soldiers the advantage of shooting enemies they couldn’t SEE. That...is piss poor doctrine, Amazing. That’s army for you. Don’t put any emphasis in infantry tactics or marksmanship. Just spray shit until you are out of ammo and fall back. Then have the marines go in and handle it. NOT ONE WORD about the military dusting off m14s, putting them in a new chassis, adding an optic and putting them in use in the Middle East conflict because intermediate wasn’t doing the job. Or the current programs completely moving away from the intermediate for that very reason.

[@JustAnotherPaddy]

lou oldschool - that requires training

[@bilbonob548]

@@JustAnotherPaddy It's called suppressive fire and is an effective tactic at minimising the enemies ability to pick you off from a position you can't see. The M14 was 2 pounds heavier than the AR-10 and its centre of mass was substantially more towards the muzzle. Despite its extra weight the M-14 STILL had substantially more recoil due to the fact that the bore and action were above-line with the stock, meaning mediocre handling. As for the M-14 being reintroduced into Afghanistan, that is entirely because they had a surplus of unused M-14's in inventory and it's a whole lot easier retrofitting an M-14 as a pseudo-DMR than procuring another entirely new weapon. BTW, the modern M-14 variants (M21, EBR's etc.) have all sorts of accuracy issues like stringing due to the bedding of the M-14 being susceptible to changing POI over successive shots and temp changes. You're perfectly free to like the M-14, doesn't make it a good modern rifle.

[@wildrootvnam1645]

I was trained on the M-14 in 1967 and won the trophy for rifle shooting in basic training at Fort Leonard Wood that year. In my 26 months in Vietnam flying helicopters I had every rifle/machine gun/ grenade launcher I wanted. Nothing comes close to the reliability of the original M-14 in my humble experience. My M-16 would jam easily as sand was often kicked up from rotor blades and the 7.62 round did its job using less cartridges. Yes the 7.62 was larger and heavier but did its job on the first shot if you did your job with placement. I still shoot 7.62 and am extremely confident with it over the 5.56 round. The M-14's only drawback was its lack of control on fully automatic operation. For fully auto we used the infamous M-60 machine gun.

[@HO-bndk]

The British Royal Marines and Gurkhas also used the AR-15 in combat in the jungles in Indonesia in 1964-65 and liked it. These were a COTS purchase directly from Colt.

[@joeltee9894]

Having carried a variation of the M16 for 20 odd years in the infantry I was grateful for the light weight and the ammo capacity. But I still love my M1A and it remains my favorite rifle.

[@ltljohn1725]

One thing you have to realize is when they ordered the M-14 they were gearing up for the cold war and a lage conventional war in Europe not Vietnam. That had a lot to do with their thinking.

[@mcqueenfanman]

The after action reports from the Korea war say that the US soldier absolutely loves/trusted the M1, its easy to see why they kept the design. This video paints a picture of the m14 being just an m1 w/ a box mag. That's simply not true. A lot of improvements in the op rod, gas system and the roller bolt make it different enough.

[@drob437]

Exactly! The belief was that the next war would be fought in Europe against the Warsaw Pact, not the North Vietnamese army in the jungle. Also, the French preferred the M1 carbine and M2 carbine during their fight in Vietnam from 1946-1954. The French realized the value of the carbine in the jungle environment.

[@Ideo7Z]

Then they should have went the FAL. It would have standardized logistics with other NATO nations as was the original plan, not to mention the fact that FN gave the licensing to make the guns to the British and Americans for free.

[@lostsaxon7478]

They should've read the German reports on the STG44. Their reports were nothing but praise all around, especially when it came to assaulting positions and the fact that the round didn't kick much. If it was a large open field and the USSR was just marching troops through it unsupported then yes. However, that wouldn't have been the case and the AK would've given substantial fire superiority because of much more controllable it would be. Few of the accounts I've read on the STG44 all mentioned how much easier and faster it was for them to gain fire superiority which gave them the initiative in maneuvering which ended assaults much quicker. The 3rd Fallschirmjager Division in the Battle of the Bulge showed the effectiveness of such a gun in large numbers compared to the 5th Fallschirmjager Division which had little of them but had more artillery.

[@frankdanger135]

You are kinda right, they lacked the forward thinking that killed a lot of good men. The m1 was a success in ww2 because it was the only standard infantry rifle that was semi auto, going up against infantry with bolt actions. Yes the Germans had fully automatic weapons but their stanard issue was the k98 bolt action. We had greater firepower, from a far more advance weapon. But by the end of the war it was outdated compared to the Russians ak. But instead of trying to find a better design the US military try to hold back progress because of tradition and business. The creator of the m1 even knew that, he pushed for the same concepts the ar would embody; a semi/full atuo rifle with detachable magazines, smaller faster rounds for greater range and capacity. You can find footage on yt seeing him talking about the improvement they needed to make to keep up in the arms race. Instead he was pressured to make the m14 which was restricted from fulfilling modern needs. It's a good rifle but for standard issue it was not right for the job. Especially seeing other designs at the time. It was not met for the cold war it was met for a war that already ended.

[@aaron042671]

We have a Chinese clone of the m14 available in Canada for $600 CAD ($400 USD) which is identical other than manufacturing blems on all Chinese firearms, like norinco. Barrels re out of line on some

[@jeffforbess6802]

Your audience shows your quality. More vets than air softers.

[@richardhoepfner1633]

I trained with the M-14 and qualified Sharpshooter with it. Before graduation we were given the the M-16 and with only sighting it in and no other training were sent to the Qualification Course. I qualified with it as Sharpshooter again. In my opinion the M-16 was definitely a better rifle than the M-14.

[@dand6843]

That is all you did with the M14 as well. You sighted in. kept your dope and then Qualified. At 500 meters with My M14 I never once shot out of the Black. With a 16 you were lucky if it would reach 500 meters.

[@johnbadger1507]

@@dand6843 Me too. Qualified expert Marine Corps regs.

[@chiaroscuro3552]

It's interesting how the needs of the different services interact. When European countries were adopting the first machine guns most of the armies questioned usefulness of 100+ pound set- ups. The various Navies usually adopted them first, because they really didn't care what it weighs. In this story the Air Force really needs the lightest, shortest rifle and so it goes.

[@removedot]

Yeah, that is really who was behind the M-16 getting adopted. It was really more for Air Force guys that would probably never see combat, and for people like truck drivers.

[@Swimmer47]

Thank you for your very informative commentary. I used the M-14 out of boot camp but later was assigned the M-16. We joked that it was made by Mattel.

[@shawnwells5719]

The Garand does not use an eight shot stripper clip. It uses an eight shot en-bloc clip. It was also designed for an intermediate cartridge, but the Army decided it needed to use the huge quantities of 30-06 on hand, so it mandated it be changed to that caliber. Garand was not happy about that. The FN-FAL suffered the same fate when the 7.62 NATO was crammed down everyone's throat - it had to be upscaled to handle the 30 caliber. That it still worked better than the M-14 is a testament to the soundness of its design.

[@RalphReagan]

My thoughts too

[@Atombender]

The FAL chambered in .280 British (would-be NATO designation 7 x 42) is what should have been issued to US troops after WW2 but thanks to pride, egoism and selfishness, the men whose lives depended on having access to the best possible gear got cheated. Who knows how many service lives were lost because of this fateful decision.

[@sonicknuckleswomble8927]

I hear that the G3's precurser, the Cetme, was also chambered for an intermediate cartridge, good riddance that the US army doesn't make weapons anymore tbh

[@cmanlovespancakes]

Funny the US military buys most of the small caliber rifles, and machine guns from FN a Belgium company. FN also now has license to make the M2 Heavy machine gun. The weapons including the M4 are made in US based factories but owned privately. Times have changed.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

The FAL doesn't work better than the M-14. Both are equally-sound designs, albeit in somewhat different ways. There are a lot of put-down artists out there who slag the M-14, but if the FAL is so hot, why isn't it in service anymore with anyone's army? The only people still using them as a standard infantry rifle are the Brazilians, if memory serves. The M-14 is still doing its job for the U.S. military in specialized roles, and the G3 is still being used by a number of fairly sizeable nations, including Pakistan, Iran, Mexico and some others. Your analysis of the Garand is not entirely correct. The .276 Pedersen cartridge was considered for the Garand, but it wasn't an intermediate cartridge - it was a full-sized, full-power center-fire rifle cartridge similar to the then-new .270 hunting cartridge, which is simply a 30-06 case necked-down to accept a .27-caliber projectile. The .276 performed exceptionally well in terminal ballistic tests (against some unfortunate pigs), but was rejected by Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur, who cited the vast stocks of 30-06 then in U.S. government armories and warehouses. During the Great Depression, the money simply wasn't there for such a switch, especially given the fact that the 30-06 had performed so well in action during WWI and in numerous brush wars. You imply that the 30-06 was a mediocre or inferior cartridge, which that is simply not the case - as its record in two world wars, and numerous smaller ones attests. You then go on to imply that the FAL was a failure when chambered in .308 - but gee, then how come I have met some many British Army veterans who loved their L1A1's? I agree with you that the road not taken with the .280 British might have been fascinating, but on the other hand, the round hadn't been sorted out entirely at the time of the FAL's adoption and it is far-from-certain it would have been the success you imagine. Alternative history is called "'what if' history" for a reason - because no one has a crystal ball able to see history that didn't happen. Hey, let's say you are right and it would have been great.... if the .280 was such hot stuff, why didn't Britain adopt it anyway in the face of U.S. opposition? Revisionist historians want to say that the 7.62x51 NATO was this lousy round forced on the alliance, when that isn't the case at all. While far from perfect in every role, the .308 is an excellent general-purpose cartridge, one of the finest of its type ever developed. I suppose it boils down to whether you see the glass half-empty or half-full.

[@CoryHobbs2178]

Imagine if we had the AR-15 with 6.5 Grendel or 6mm ARC during Nam, that would have been pretty cool

[@Joshua_N-A]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/6%C3%9745mm Designed in 1965 and uses .223 parent case. Or they could've just modify the .276 Pedersen.

[@broes1962]

Or even a FAL. Would've made a difference.

[@GabrielAlves-fw7bj]

@@broes1962 Had US gone full FAL , it would turn into NATO's official AKM

[@robertbates6057]

I agree about the 6.5 Grendel. Seems like the perfect solution to the AR platform.

[@imgvillasrc1608]

Hot take, imagine if Nam vets were issued with the AAI XM19 SPIWs instead.

[@jmesha]

This was a great video, full of facts and history that I knew little about. All I ever used in the military (Air Force) starting in 1970 was the M-16 which I thoroughly liked, but I never used it in combat. I've always liked the M-1A which is the reason that I watched this video. My biggest issue is that while I agree with the presentation, I'm not wanting to get the M-1A to go to war, just to enjoy the history and do some target shooting and it still looks like a good choice to me.

[@stephenbehl9178]

Loved my m14,,,viet nam,,Marines 66-67,,, especially after I put a scope on it,,,never failed me

[@JPS1Dec]

My dad was at Da Nang, Marines, 66-67.

[@Hibernicus1968]

Ordnance Corps' foot-dragging and sidelining of advanced weapons goes back much farther than you mentioned in this video. Rene Studler's spiritual ancestor during the Civil War was Col. James W. Ripley. He adamantly opposed the development and issue of breech loaders and repeating weapons during the Civil War, as well as the early mechanical machine guns like the Ager "coffee mill gun" (some of these were purchased on the direct order of President Lincoln, and Ripley complied -- and then promptly had them immured in the Washington arsenal, where they sat out the war; and when Major General John C. Fremont, commanding in the West, wrote to Ripley and stated that he wanted the weapons, Ripley blatantly lied in his response, and claimed he'd never heard of any such weapon) and the Gatling, dismissing all these developments as "newfangled gimcracks." He was one of many, many, many U.S. army officers over the decades who firmly believed that a greater rate of fire would just cause soldier's to waste ammo. He only lasted as long as he did in the job because there was no one else in the tiny pre-war U.S. army of those days with the necessary expertise to run his bureau. Even still, his obstructionism grew too blatant, and he was finally put out to pasture in September of 1863. Hidebound, backward-looking, stuck-in-the-past ordnance officers, studiously preparing to fight the LAST war go back a long, long way in the U.S. army.

[@jamesdill4441]

Darren O'Connor CV

[@CrysResan]

Criminal charges should have been filed against those official that did that crap, especially because it got loyal soldiers killed due to stubbornness and corrupt attempts at money making. Utterly shameful.

[@89tonstar]

I remember a conversation I had with a gun shop idiot who talked shit to me for buying a rock river AR15, My first to be exact. He said that the 5.56x45mm was one of the worst general issue pea shooter ever issued to the American fighting man. It was an antiquated view point, like one shared by ordinance Corp on 1959, the .223 Remington is an excellent cartridge for varmit hunting but not for the two legged variety. He would point out all the usual anti 5.56/ AR15 dogma. Poor reliability, poor terminal performance, bullet tumbles through the air etc. Lol He said that for a large animal or human target a .30 Is needed. He goes, "the Russians knew it, Jerry knew it, why the hell would we think we would be an exception." I thanked him for his unsolicited advice and very nicely told him I have cash so shut the Hell up. He was really pushing me to get a Springfield armory m1a scout, said it does everything my AR would do but more realiably.

[@youraveragereloader649]

@Yuvi A *untrue

[@josephgonzales4802]

I totally agree with you. This also goes back to the 19th century when the U.S. Army turned its Spencer rifles for 1873 trap door Springfield breech loading rifle. If they want to they could have refined the Spencer rifle.😠

[@raywhitehead730]

Loved the M14. Accurate, reliable good range.

[@GrottyWanker69]

Yeah an average a 4-6MOA gun that can't handle real world dirty conditions. AK's are literally more accurate than most rack grade M14s and infinitely more reliable.

[@raywhitehead730]

@@GrottyWanker69 Qualified expert on Edson Range on a windy day at Pendleton with an M14., 1969.

[@bubbaclinton1105]

The M1 uses an enbloc clip, NOT a stripper clip. Apples and oranges.

[@MCG55555]

There's one part I still don't get: how is the M14 less reliable than the Garand? Shouldn't it be the same?

[@tomlee2481]

Not necesarrily. Think about it, the m14 is taking an m1 garand, putting in a mag system and playing with the gas system. Sometimes tweaking old designs, can introduce new "problems." That being said, the m14 is still very well built and reliable rifle. It just probably is not as reliable as a m1 garand.

[@Swarm509]

As I understand it they had to totally retool to build the M14 and could not use the M1 Garand tooling. New tooling, a few changes to the design for full auto, and new ammo/magazine can be more then enough to cause issues. Also throw in the jungle to make it worse.

[@InsertEvilLaugh]

The M14 had more moving parts.

[@johnc8910]

"The M14 had more moving parts." Actually, no. When you field strip both, you have a bigger pile of small M1 parts.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

It's a common fallacy that the M-14 is unreliable, and/or that it is less-reliable than the Garand. The gas system on the M-14 in particular, is a much-improved design over the relatively-primitive first-generation setup on an M-1, which has no gas regulator of any kind, whereas the M-14 gas system is entirely self-regulating, and much more forgiving of different types of ammunition than its predecessor. Both rifles, properly set-up and maintained, are very reliable and tough under field conditions. Like any mechanical device, they need to be cared for and cleaned and lubricated, but if you take of them, they'll take care of you. The same is true of the FAL as well. About the only knock on the FAL is that some forces - the IDF, for example - didn't have good results with them under the sandy, dusty conditions of the desert. According to reports, the FAL did very well in SE Asia and Vietnam, as did the M-14.

[@danielwhite9205]

Retired Commander from the Navy. Got out in 02 and served with some of the finest men I have ever seen. The M25 weapon system as a seal literally saved not just my own ass but that of my entire team. I dubbed her Audrey after my diabolical Grandmother. She liked to dominate =). We were of course trained in just about every long rifle and side arm you can imagine. Even the enemies... The m14 is a fantastic system that has seen rebirth after rebirth. There is a reason it's still used today by our special forces and many other LE departments around the world.

[@hegot241]

I carried the M14 from 1964 to 1970. I loved the power and the heft of that man killer!

[@dantz34]

Great video you really broke things down. I myself enjoy shooting the m1a very nice but I'm a very long way from the jungles of Vietnam and war. Paper targets and the range are a little different

[@carmancarmack9976]

my uncle and 25 other marines was KIA during the hill fights in Vietnam 1967 over half had a jammed weapon....it's messed up that the government knew that it would malfunction.

[@bgorveatt]

I loved my Canadian FAL FN C1A1and I miss it even more. When you pulled that trigger, it sent that 7.62 round down range with authority!!

[@brazidas58]

I used the FAL FN C1 and the C2 when I was in Canadian army. As a C2 man the ammunition was quite heavy. The C2 was 15 lbs as compared with the C1 10 lbs. I would say that the accuracy of the C2 on a tripod was outstanding 300 -800 yards. For a more accurate shot I used to tern down the gas and it turned into a single shot ,moving the bolt manually each time after firing. Loved it.

[@williamhorbaly3857]

I grew up competition shooting in the 50’s. I loved it. Then in Dec. 65 went to Ft. Polk for basic training in the rain and sand. The M 14 was prone to rust and was so so heavy (I weighed 145 lbs.) I hated the damn thing and was so glad I never had to carry one again. We had “strict” orders to not use much oil on it and would be reprimanded if found out. A friend who “cycled” 6 weeks before me let me in on how to clean it. Turn on the shower as hot as possible, wash all the sand out, then oil it like crazy. Never got caught and graduated with a commendation for the “best kept rifle” in the company. Now I just shoot pistols.

[@MrParkinthedark]

I respect your opinion sir, I genuinely thought this was an insightful video thank you

[@HO-bndk]

Those rifles you hold up all look like they have been fantastically well looked-after.

[@Blue-rw9kj]

Loved my M-14 at Fort Hood and AR-14 in Germany, '66-'68.

[@toki89666]

Thats interesting that you had a very uncommon AR-14 rifle, those were just a semiauto sporter rifle that never left prototype phase at Armalite.

[@Procket12]

I turn into Moe from the Simpsons when I hear Rene Studler's name: "Ack! Ooh! GAH! Chokin' on my own rage here!"

[@brownh2orat211]

Love how people who probably never actually carried the weapon day to day talks about bow much they despise it, M14 was the first rifle I was issued, perfect for when you wanted to reach out and touch someone, and not some special worked up sniper rifle, just the run of the mill issued rifle that you took the time to sight in.

[@markmorell5760]

Butt stroke someone with an M 16 and you piss them off, buttstroke them with an M 14 or Garand and you piss off their leaders for taking out one of their own. Also makes a great platform for a bayonet!!

[@geneellis217]

age 81 the Garand was my rifle USMC 9.5 lbs heavy, limited ammo and some how this almost never jams rifle I managed to lock up the operating rod while on guard duty and intruders on the area so I field stripped the darn thing and by the time I got it re assembled the threat was gone.

[@richardsveum8452]

Imagine a AR10 in .280 British and that is what truly could have been.

[@JokahFACE]

Seems kind of like an AR-15 in something like 6.5 Grendel before its time.

[@Ron-zr6se]

Thank you for the history lesson regarding the M14.

[@loripara141]

"Yeah these Vietnamese in this jungle are using fully automatic rifles in a thick jungle, here is a heavy rifle that's bulky and hard to use in such a situation. "

[@dand6843]

The M14 can cut down trees

[@loripara141]

@@dand6843 if you have enough ammo to. It was too heavy bud, and that much ammo would have been ridiculous

[@ek7404]

Chris Indermuehle Hit it right on the head. The M14 is a fine civilian rifle, but for combat? Give me a break.

[@donwyoming1936]

I'm right there with you. I grew up hearing how perfect the M1 & M14 were. I started shooting matches & discovered they weren't even reliable at the range. Especially when sand would get kicked up by the wind in NM & TX. In 1995, I switched over to a Colt HBAR. Wow! Reliable. Accurate. Soft recoil. But I already knew that having been packing the M16 & GAU-5 in the USAF.

[@5TailFox]

Maybe it's my OCD kickin' in, but I love how clean and polished your rifles are. 🙂

[@mikeowen657]

A kid Marine, I carried an M14 on the DMZ from Jan'67 until it was replaced by the M16 in Apr'67. I hated having to reload the mags every time I went over the wire because if you didn't the mag spring would take a set and you'd get one shot from the chambered round and then failure to feed .. I despised how the front-sight/bayonet lug sitting out at the end of the barrel caught on every vine and branch - esp when trying to move quietly. But guys went down when you hit them, even through brush. Unfortunately, it was replaced with a piece of shit that couldn't get through the lightest cover and jammed often despite the best maintenance we could do. I've gone in to recover dead and found the dinks just destroyed them instead of taking them for use. Its descendants are much better and the heavier projectile a more reliable stopper; but I'm happier now with my FN. I'm now old, so I can provide effective cover for the younger would-be 'operators'

[@ArtietheArchon]

damn it really says a lot when your enemy won't even commandeer certain pieces of your equipment when they are fighting a guerilla war...

[@Pointman-yf6or]

Kid marine, worked out of lz baldy myself, but with the 1/14th inf, U.S. Army "golden dragons" in 67/68. Same experience as you, that pos m 16 was terrible! Glad they let me have my m14 back. I have an sks that I captured there, (sent the previous owner to the great rice paddy in the sky) that I have re barreled and fixed up a little. Good a rifle that you could want imo, damn sure better than that pos m16. This guy is a remf, and don't know shit, but any way bud, welcome home! Pointman said it!

[@mikeowen657]

@@Pointman-yf6or - I roger you - & SKS fine gun. This vid guy is too young to know anything more than he's read. Only we that did it know - all other opinions are worthless. Congrats on getting old ☺

[@Maddog-xc2zv]

Great video. I'm glad yt showed to me 5 years after it was posted. Very wise words are said here.

[@takingbacktoxic7898]

In a perfect scenario, we would have been using the FAL in .280 british

[@keiththiha]

@Trevor Lahey explain, I think the fal is superior to the m14, even more so in .280

[@TragicTester034]

@@keiththiha Honestly the US got the best scenario with the 5.56x45mm M16A1

[@Treblaine]

Ian from Forgotten Weapons thinks .280 and 7.62NATO are very similar in terms of recoil, you could easily just make a longer lighter bullet for 7.62NATO to replicate all aspects of .280 British. Neither round was light enough to handle the recoil for full auto from a 4kg rifle.

[@keiththiha]

@@Treblaine I believe later 380 British cartridges are ballistically identical to 7mm-08

[@Treblaine]

@@8166PC1 (1) Sectional density isn't the only factor in ballistic coefficient. See the 7.92x41mm and 7.62x51mm CETME ammunition. (2) What do you need such a great BC for? Riflemen don't need to have great bullet velocity all the way out to 600-800m, the 7.62x39mm has been a huge success with rather mediocre ballistic coefficient and not particularly high velocity either.

[@mr.nobody68]

U.S. Army 246 years of tradition Unmarred by progress

[@varonmullis5255]

Met the M-14 in BCT in 1969 and fell in love with it. Never missed at 350 meters over open sights. After twenty-two years in the Army, the M-14 remains my personal weapon of choice. Other times and other places call for something different, certainly.

[@philippefrater2000]

Conclusion. Never ever let the Army choose the weapon system in War time... 🖖🏻🇫🇷😎🇫🇷🤪🇫🇷🖖🏻

[@williamharper9893]

To borrow a phrase from a certain well known company, "If you have to ask you wouldn't understand".

[@richardbunnn4asx]

In my youth, I competed in Service rifle matches (CMP) with the M-1 and the M-14 Semi auto, Both shoot less then a ,minute of angle, I went to the AR-15 and the A2 version needed some work to shoot as well. My M-14 semi is a Fulton Armory and I would not want to carry it a field, but it does shoot!!!

[@daspiper8941]

~As a Vietnam Veteran; today I am now an older man and my mobility is limited. ~Even with it's faults, I still love my M-14 and always will. However I think the AK-47 is a superior weapon in many way. I love my AK-47 and is my choice in case of a Civil War and I must move from my home. If I can remain in my home my M-14 will be my weapon of choice.

[@johnbrowning8021]

As another old phart veteran with limited mobility, I have settled on the M1 Carbine to bug out with. At least I will not be so tired when the young bastids shoot me down as i am bugging out.

[@b.santos8804]

The M14 itself was an okay rifle. Basically an updated M1 Garand, which proved it's worth in WW2 and Korea. However, the Germans and Soviets, having been locked in mortal combat for 4 years, learned a thing or two about effective combat small arms, and essentially invented the concept of the assault rifle - a gun that had the rate of fire of a submachine gun, with (almost) the cartridge effectiveness of a full-powered rifle. Lots of post WW2 studies bore out the conclusion that rifles firing overpowered cartridges were less effective than ones firing intermediate cartridges, but the US military decided they wanted to stick with an antiquated concept.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

@ Polkovnik Mosin: Re: "However, the Germans and Soviets, having been locked in mortal combat for 4 years, learned a thing or two about effective combat small arms, and essentially invented the concept of the assault rifle - a gun that had the rate of fire of a submachine gun, with (almost) the cartridge effectiveness of a full-powered rifle." Gee, if assault rifles and intermediate cartridges are such hot stuff, then how were a bunch of rag-tag mujaheddin armed with antiquated Lee-Enfield .303 bolt-action rifles able to beat the renowned Soviet Army so badly back in the Soviet-Afghan War of the 1970s-1980s? Answer: Fire power - real fire-power -is hits per minute, not shots fired per minute. A pinned down Soviet platoon, armed with AK74s, could not engage enemy forces firing at them from beyond the lethal envelope of the 5.45x39 cartridge. Theoretically lethal out to 600 meters or more, in actual use reliable only inside of 250-300m. Spray and pray didn't work then, and it doesn't work now, which is why U.S. forces have been in the same predicament over there since 2001. And it is also why the old surplus battle rifles - the M-14, the G3, etc. - have been dragged out of mothballs and sent into the field again. Because intermediate cartridges don't have enough power to be effective in the mountains of Afghanistan and the Hindu Kush. Re: "Lots of post WW2 studies bore out the conclusion that rifles firing overpowered cartridges were less effective than ones firing intermediate cartridges, but the US military decided they wanted to stick with an antiquated concept." Studies which were often quite flawed in their methodology. The truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes. An army equipped only with full-power battle rifles will find itself ill-equipped to wage war in close-quarters conditions, such as in urban combat (MOUT) or in heavy jungle or vegetation or other confined spaces. However, an army equipped only with assault rifles is equally ill-equipped to fight in the mountains, desert, or in any environment where ranges open up past 200-300 meters, or where a significant amount of shooting must be done through cover. And in the absence of crew-served heavy weapons, air, artillery or other assets, ground forces may find that heavy rifle fire is their best tool for dealing with enemy forces at distance. Which is why the Indian Army still issues the FAL-pattern rifle to their alpine troops, who must face Pakistani troops above the snow line in the contested Kashmir region.

[@b.santos8804]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Right you are, which is why infantry units as small as squad size today are equipped with a variety of weapons, and the concept of a designated marksman has gained much more traction. While he's not a true "sniper," the DM is trained and equipped to provide longer ranged fire than the standard infantryman. I believe the current TOE for US Army infantry and US Marine squads is one per squad, but i have little doubt that they can increase that number if the situation calls for it

[@richardalonzo5768]

Thank you Skipper for your fairly accurate description. I was first issued the m14 when I enlisted into the Corp . It was a fine rifle. Never gave me any problems firing even when filthy it worked. In 1971 I traded it in for an m16. It seemed to attract more dirt and dust than the 14 I was pissed when one time hitting the ground hard I used the butt stock to break my fall instead I broke the butt stock. I also remember getting tired of trying to keep it clean so when I got a chance to shower I took it in with me and it cleaned up well. But even after oiling the barrel and shooting it again . The barrel started rusting. I’m sure by today all the bugs are worked out now. But those earlier days caused us to nickname the 16 the ( Mattie Mattel special ). SSGT Alonzo, DAV USMC. I forgot to add I was a good shot and could site the 14 for 600 yards with open sites and still make fine groupings