Why I Despise the M14...

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@EQ9962]

“I don’t think you guys want to be here for two hours”. Actually, yes, yes I do want to listen to your in depth analysis for two hours....

[@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!

[@trapperjohn2462]

Great video. "Despise" is a strong word, but I think you should have applied it more to the military acquisition process and not the rifle. I carried an M14 in Vietnam and loved it. However, I was assigned to a US Navy Special Boat Unit. As such, two of the major drawbacks of the M14 were eliminated. 1) The weight of the rifle and 2) the weight of the ammo. When not in use, my M14 was in a rack on the boat sitting next to cans of ammo. When compared to the M16, The larger , heavier round of the M14 was better able to better "punch" through jungle vegetation and light weight barriers, like wooden boats or make shift "bunkers". I can never remember using the M14 in "full auto" mode when engaging the enemy, for the obvious reasons you have outlined in your video. Many times, such engagements were at "stand-off" ranges of 200 yards or more. Of course, we had 2 M60 machine mounted on our boat. The M60s were very effective at these ranges also, but many times. all that was required to suppress the enemy was a few well placed shots from the M14. Now, if given a choice between the M14 or the FN-FAL......No contest! The FN-FAL would be the choice. However, I didn't have that option. The bottom line? My M14 served me well for more than 3 years and never let me down. I should point out, that prior to joining the Navy, I was an avid deer hunter and my cartridge of choice was the .308. Again, I great video. Thanks!

[@poncoolride]

Belive me, the FN FAL is NOT a better rifle than the M-14. And despite what people may try to tell you the FN is also NOT as accurate as the M-14.

[@XTrooper3936]

Hear, hear! As a young Marine, I loved my M14 and wasn't the least bit happy when they took it from me and handed me an M16. I wasn't alone. Despising the M14 over the shenanigans of its proponents is a classic case of misplaced anger. It ain't the rifle's fault!

[@nedflanders8447]

IMHO firing ANY hand held weapon at fully auto is ONLY for suppressive fire, so it doesn't really need to stay on target when you are shooting at an "AREA" and not an individual target. The M14 has selective fire! select single and watch what that round will do compared to a 5.56. It may be true that while trudging through jungle mountains, you may want a smaller , lighter weapon. For accuracy at range and power on target, I will take the M14 over the M4 any day. You can indeed carry more 5.56 ammo, that is good, because you will need more rounds to get the job done.

[@CaesarInVa]

I agree. As a member of my carrier's Personal Leadership Program (which was a program that augmented the Marine detachment with sailors so the former could get some liberty when we went into port), my in-port general quarters station was in the foretop with an M-14 and two bandoleers of ammunition (there were actually three of us up there: one other armed sailor, a sound-powered talker and myself). The foretop was a steel grate about 6 feet by 6 feet that was welded to the mast just beneath the air/surface search and fire control radars (thankfully, those systems were de-energized when in port). From that vantage point, we could direct accurate fire on any small craft within a thousand yards of the ship. It was a heavy weapon, so I can understand the complaints of those who had to lug it around a steaming, triple-canopy jungle or on long marches, but it was incredibly accurate which was still in use as the primary ship-board defense weapon in the fleet well into the 2000s and perhaps might still be found there today. One other thing that made the M-14 preferable to the M-16 for ship=board defense: the M-14's 7.62 mm round would cut right through a steel bulkhead and take out whomever was on the other side (hopefully, the bad guys), whereas the M-16's 5.56 mm round ran the risk of bouncing off the bulkhead and ricocheting around in the compartment, taking out your own people and quite possible yourself.

[@BWo-bb1yw]

Thanks to all the men who carried a battle rifle.

[@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!

[@shakamakana8492]

'69, 11B4P, 173rd Airborne Brigade 👍😎👍Loved my M16 throughout my tour in RVN. Hardly used the auto mode, the M60 handled that! We just carried the 7.62 belts 🙂 My only complaint about the M16 was that it didn't protect me from Agent Orange! I'm 74yrs old, with 100% VA service connected disability heart disease connected to that chemical . Life goes on!

[@iamAwesomo1994]

that sucks, pal. thanks for your service, anyway.

[@CrossingRover]

So sorry to hear about your health condition. My uncle served in the Marines in Vietnam and has suffered from agent orange exposure. He has said you guys got a terrible response from the public when returning home, but I just wanted to say this millennial appreciates your service and is glad you made it home.

[@DMF716]

Hope your doing well brother. WELCOME HOME.

[@shakamakana8492]

@@DMF716 76 and still kicking.... but now I'm down to those 3 footers 🏄‍♀️ 👍 Mahalos and Aloha, my Friend....

[@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

[@rwsmith7638]

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

[@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.

[@rampantcolt]

I carried an M14 on my 3rd Iraq deployment and I loved it more than my M4. It was a beast! But to each is own. Great video as always.

[@Kirtahl]

In the middle east didn't america start fielding more marksman because the ranges are further so we need more high powered rifles.

[@thinzki44]

I guess your M14 does have a scope.

[@leroysellers5398]

Lee Harvey Oswald ha the m14 is an awesome riflemans rifle. You just can’t see past your prideful biases which are evident on this videos comments.

[@spvillano]

@@leroysellers5398 given some of us have actually served in our recent wars, perhaps the poser Oswald wannabe should speak about the video games he played, rather than real world things. Even money, Lee boy would think that a butt stroke is something to be enjoyed receiving.

[@notlikely4468]

Perhaps.... But...a full on fire fight at 100m Might be different than an OP with 500m fields of fire When I play golf...I carry a whole bag of clubs...I get a choice But in the Army....I got issued an FAL But....my weapon of choice (for NATO ops in Germany 1980-85) Was the Sterling SMG James Bond... Hans Solo... And me...

[@wfiguy]

I was trained on the M14 in 1964 at Fort Knox. I believed all the hype the army put out in the training films and thought it was a great weapon. But my young brain noted some discrepancies. For some reason the army tried to convince me that the M14 was light. Now I'm a big guy but that was not a light weapon. Secondly, the constantly talked about select fire and full auto. The only time I saw M14's with select fire were in training films. When we asked why there weren't any select fire M14s available to the troops we were told that we would waste ammo(?) Now I was a pretty good shot with the M14 and was amazed when I hit targets at 400 yards with open sights. But I wondered how that would apply to jungle warfare. Also in my hands the rifle was a good club and bayonet base. But I still wondered why it had to be so big. I thought the M1 carbine would make a much better jungle weapon. But I was told the M1 carbine was obsolete and lacked hitting power. I guess the army knew better. But honestly I could carry two carbines and ammo just as easily as 1 M14. But they knew better. But what really bothered me was that the M14 would overheat after three mags and would often double feed. But being a good soldier I obeyed orders. They also told us that the new M16 was junk. I thought it looked cool, was easier to deploy and more ammo could be carried. It also had that selector lever for full auto. But the M14 was effective at 1000 yards they said. Oh well. I was scheduled to go to VietNam in 1968 but due to a twist of fate I never saw combat and ended up training troops on the 105 Howitzer at Ft Sill. I have often wondered why the M14 had such a short service life. Although I see that it is sometimes used to this day by special forces. Maybe someone will get a 700 yard (klics) klll in Afghanistan. But your video confirms my suspicions especially due to tradition and my observation regarding discrepancies has been confirmed.

[@GuitaristOnDaRoof]

Modern Military use of the M14 is not because of how fantastic the rifle is. In the Iraq and Afghanistan wars a rifle with greater effective firing range was needed in some circumstances. So stead of having to go through the process of selecting and purchasing a new rifle chambered in a full sized round. They found it would be faster and cheaper to pull M14s from storage, then refurbish and accurize them. In a nutshell the Army needed a .308, not the M14.

[@nedflanders8447]

The m1 carbine had a hard time penetrating even goat skin coats in Korea. The m14 weighs 10.7 pounds loaded. maximum effective range 875yd The m16 weighs 7.76 pounds loaded . maximum effective range 600yd 5.56x45 avg ft lbs = 1311 7.62x51 avg ft lbs = 2475 The big advantage is the power of the 7.62 NATO round. I have trained with an m14. Length was the only issue I ever had with it. 3 extra pounds never bothered me. I personally made several 1000 yd shots. Optics were used on those long range shots.

[@kayraaa2646]

James Leahy The Springfield T44, later adopted as the M14 (An M1 Garand with 20 round box magazines, full auto switch and a White pattern shortened gas system) was a nice rifle for civilian shooters and marksmen. The process of turning the T44 into the M14 is despicable. The bureocracy ruined a rifle.

[@kayraaa2646]

ned flanders Can you show me any evidence about the inferior penetration of the .30 carbine?

[@nedflanders8447]

@@kayraaa2646 I have a fun to shoot m1 carbine. It is a great rifle. Just don't use it against Chinese and North Korean soldiers wearing heavy winter gear, and don't expect it to do well against even the lightest body armor (.30 carbine is essentially a pistol round) . The Goatskin coat comment was a story passed from my Uncle who fought in Korea. He Told me That if the enemy was more than 50 yds away, shooting would be a waste of ammo. He said he could see the impacting rounds and little or no effect on the target. I have my own range and have done a lot penetration tests with things like books, concrete blocks, and water. If you were to take an M1 carbine out and test it against almost any other military rifle you would see the evidence quick enough. The rifle was originally designed for a more powerful than 1911 .45 pistols replacement for rear echelon guards. So it does it's job well. It does have more than that pistol. Some states don't even allow deer hunting with it, because of lack of muzzle energy. below is some found stats.... The .30 Carbine was developed from the .32 Winchester Self-Loading used in an early semi-auto sporting rifle. A standard .30 Carbine ball bullet weighs 110 grains (7.1 g); a complete loaded round weighs 195 grains (12.6 g) and has a muzzle velocity of 1,990 ft/s (610 m/s), giving it 967 ft⋅lbf (1,311 joules) of energy when fired from the M1 carbine's 18-inch barrel. By comparison, the .30-06 M2 cartridge for M1 Garand rifle fired a ball bullet weighing 152 grains (9.8 g) at a muzzle velocity of 2,805 ft/s (855 m/s) and 2,655 ft⋅lbf (3,600 joules) of muzzle energy. Therefore, the M1 carbine is significantly less powerful than the M1 Garand. Another comparison is a .357 Magnum cartridge fired from an 18" rifle barrel, which has a muzzle velocity range from about 1,718-2,092 ft/s (524-638 m/s) with energies at 720-1,215 ft⋅lbf (976-1,647 J) for a 110 gr (7.1 g) bullet at the low end and a 125 gr (8.1 g) bullet on the high end.[11] As a hunting arm, the M1 carbine is approximately the equivalent to a .357 Magnum lever-action rifle. .30 Carbine sporting ammunition is factory recommended for hunting and control of large vermin like fox, javelina, and coyote. However, the game laws of several states do not allow hunting big game (deer, bear, or boar) with the .30 Carbine either by name or by minimum muzzle energy required.

[@maxsmodels]

The M-14 was caught in the flux between WW2 and cold war tech. I love the M-14 for long range or open field work but not for close up work. I admit that the FN is better in general because it is a truly more modern design. The real issue is that no one rifle can be all things, the M-16 and M-4 carbine have occasionally been found lacking in some battles in the middle east due to the long ranges and heavy construction of buildings but heavy calibers were a bad idea in the jungles of Vietnam. Pick your poison. I for one think the military needs to adapt its systems to the environment and quit looking for the all-in-one gun.

[@Jajalaatmaar]

The weird thing is: so was the Garand apparantly. And even before that, sticking with muskets over lever-action rifles (someone had to run up to president Lincoln to get him to shoot the rifle so that at least SOMEONE high-up would understand the innovation). The U.S. ordinance dept. seems batshit retarded for the last 100 years. I wonder if anything has changed. When I see the switch from high-capacity m249 to the standard-capacity IAR/m27, I still wonder if they have any idea what they're doing.

[@chaplaincrabtree6881]

You say "work" like shooting is your job. Let me ask you something mr. commando. How good are your eyes? Have you ever looked down irons at a target at 500 yards? Pretty damn small and almost impossible to see. 5.56 is plenty capable up to that range.

[@jasonperdue2554]

billy bob My eyes are pretty good, I can hit a man sized target at 500 with stock sights. I do 1000 yard 308 Win. iron sight competition, but I am allowed to take up to a minute to line each shot up - something I know is a luxury and not affordable in an actual fight.

[@chaplaincrabtree6881]

That's insane

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Re: "The real issue is that no one rifle can be all things" and "I for one think the military needs to adapt its systems to the environment and quit looking for the all-in-one gun." Man alive - do I ever agree with that line of reasoning! If I was in your neighborhood, I'd buy you a beer! Firearms are ultimate specialized tools, and just as no one tool, no matter how good, can do every job, no firearm can do every job, and neither can every cartridge do every job or perform every role. That knowledge, once commonplace in the military forces of the world's major nations, now seems in short supply. Different tools for different jobs. Let our soldiers have as many good options as they need to arm themselves and then let their leaders and them decide what to use in specific roles and on specific missions. Seems like common sense to me....

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@44hawk28]

@@boydgrandy5769 more like thinking Without a Paddle or a flotation device. Yes learning to shoot and in 14 and full-auto is not an easy task but it is not something that is as rare as I once believed it to be. I was able to lay down at least some controlled bursts when I was first learning the M14 when I was in high school. My biggest problem then was I only weighed 155lbs. And just to be fair, almost all four lot of work with a firearm not a dedicated machine gun is the exact prescription or why you're firing full-auto in the first place. It is suppression and grazing fire, that's why you're doing it. Trying to maintain any semblance of very good accuracy while firing any weapon in full auto is almost always an exercise in futility. The only firearm I've ever known to be able to be fully controlled in full auto was a Thompson. But who the hell wants to carry around a 12 pound gun that only fires 45 ACP without having a specialized need for it. However, I have seen people actually write their names with those guns. And the other one that was fairly accurate was the grease gun. Although its rate of fire was slow enough that even if you had one in semi-auto you could shoot it just as fast.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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

[@stephendecatur2858]

Tradition kept my butt alive, the M 14 never failed, it could blow through Vegetation with little deflect. Maybe not perfect but my preference at the time. 67 and 68

[@leonswan6733]

Your 2 cents is worth a dollar sir, you was boots on ground.

[@jaylewis1383]

That was my experience. I did basic with an M-14, then transitioned to M-16 before deploying to Vietnam. I carried the M-14 whenever I could find one. (Full disclosure: My life never depended on either one.)

[@808INFantry11X]

I mean granted from an operator level I empathize with the way you feel sir. For me though given the type of warfare we were coming up to I wouldn't want m14 over my current M4A1 in most cases.

[@808INFantry11X]

I mean I feel bad because you couldn't experience the rcarbine I have now because it's probably much better then the m16 you had back then because of all this backroom politics.

[@drogers_3]

Would you have preferred an FAL? I heard the Rhodesian troops loved them.

[@deanschneider8775]

26:00 Ah yes, the 'one use disposeable mag'. We re-used cruddy plastic ones for the C7, brittle, around 1990. It went about as well as can be imagined.

[@HaloFTW55]

Even today with pretty tough C7 mags I’m pretty sure half of my C7 stoppages were from the mags being used and dropped so many times.

[@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.

[@futuregenerationz]

Me too. Firing from a Navy Frigate, aiming at the ocean. Accurate af.

[@armorer94]

The reactionary nature of the US Army Ordnance Corps is legendary. They were famous for disregarding emerging technologies as far back as the US civil war.

[@bad74maverick1]

That stems from the Army doctrine "No unnecessary expenditure of ammunition" as it cost the ordnance dept. money. That's why magazine fed guns weren't adopted for such a long time and when they were they were required to have a magazine cut off. In fact the Spencer carbine and rifles were all sent back to the factory during and after the civil war to have the Stabler Cut off installed on their magazine tubes. Krags and 03's had cutoffs, Thompsons were eventually adopted so no drum could be installed. And if you think about it, all the decades the army enforced its no unnecessary expenditure of ammo policy was all for naught. In vietnam it's estimated that for every enemy killed 50,000 rounds had been expended.

[@rc59191]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@anthonyhayes1267]

Military tradition belongs in West Point, not Aberdeen

[@henryh.kuhlmann1794]

I was a U.S. Marine who served in Vietnam from mid 1965 thru December 1966. Though I originally trained on the M1 Garland, I carried the M-14 my whole time while in Vietnam except for special operations. It saved my life and caused MANY casualties to the VC and NVA enemy. I loved my M-14. My children are glad I carried the M-14 because they are alive too.

[@jasonwheat5242]

When i was much younger and the glocks were getting really popular i was one of the many people saying I don't want no plastic pistol. I was against it. Not only was it plastic but it didn't have a hammer. One day a friend of mine had one and let me shoot it. After I shot it I took it apart to see how it worked and how it was made. I realized how simple the striker fired system was and now all my pistols are striker fired plastic.

[@leonswan6733]

Technology if the future, its always going forward.

[@dave-d-grunt]

I realize this is a year old. But I’ll comment anyway. Think about the impact the 1911 had on pistols. Then along comes the Glock doing the same thing. Everybody is making polymer, striker pistols now. I was the same, a plastic gun?

[@chizorama]

I used to be all about steel & wood, hammers on pistols, but an old dog can learn new tricks, & am better off for it.

[@fnqbloke]

Very interesting information, I served in the Australian army, we were issued with the FAL known as the SLR (self-loading Rifle) but I had a Harrington and Richards M14 for my own private hunting use back in the early 80tys. The SLR we were issued was semi-automatic only and is heavier than the M14. I found that 3 Rnd bursts with the M14 were very controllable and accurate I was extremely surprised by that. The SLR kicks like a mule in comparison, the M14 for me was very mild. I only weigh 130 pounds, the SLR 10lb 15oz with 20 rd mag. Our troops used the semi-auto SLR in Vietnam and loved the fact that when you hit someone they stayed hit add to that if they were hiding behind a tree no worries straight through one dead noggie. Australian term for enemy Vietnamese but the general derogatory term for Asian combatants. The M14 was shipped to Australia with no selector switch and spot welded so as not to be fully auto, a bit of elbow grease a grinder and Bobs your uncle M14 Assault rifle. I was using Australian surplus military ammunition it was all match grade stuff but standard issue in our forces.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Fnqbloke: Thanks for writing and relating your experiences. It is interesting to hear an Australian view of the M-14, especially since the SLR was standard issue for ANZAC forces during the Vietnam era. In the Osprey Military title by Bob Cashner, "FN FAL Battle Rifle," the author relates the now-famous Battle of Long Tan, during which besieged Australian forces prevailed against overwhelming numbers of NVA and VC irregulars, and the SLR was mentioned in after-action accounts as being the best weapon used in the action. Must have been dicey to have been given only a few mags for use in the field, a policy which was later changed, is my understanding. 20-rd. mags are heavy, no question, but it can't be any fun trying to reload mags in a down-pour while under enemy fire, either. There's a movie about the battle, which I'd like to see one of these days. Long-overdue tribute to our fine Aussie friends and allies. Far as the M14/M1A goes, they're very good rifles.I happen to disagree with the proprietor (Small Arms Solutions)on that score. Moreover, I know half a dozen combat veterans of Vietnam, American soldiers or Marines who carried M14s in battle in SE Asia, and to a man, they speak very highly of the weapon. Take your pick going into battle, if you are that young hard-charger headed towards the sound of the guns - you won't go wrong with either the FAL/SLR or the M14.

[@philipthomas3938]

Is that far north Queensland bloke?

[@gureno19]

And now we can barely own nerf guns 🥲

[@afroliciouspresents3603]

I daresay they had equally derogatory nomenclature for your lot.

[@boondocker7964]

I had a H+R made M-14 in RVN, '66-'67, never failed me, in 1970 I did a 3 month stint at H+R's Rochdale, Mass. factory, working on M-16 parts. I would venture a guess that H+R, has been out of business for about 30 or so years.

[@suegibson4100]

USMC PFC/LCPL Vietnam 1965-66. I carried, cleaned, shot and/or slept with the M-14 for three months at Camp Pendleton, two months in Okinawa and one full year in Vietnam. Earned "Expert" rifle and pistol badges. Relative to "jungle" situation like Vietnam: Pros ~ very accurate, heavy bullet, plenty of powder, range. In my 17-months of use under a wide range of conditions [i.e., wet, dry, hot, cold, dusty, muddy] the rifle never "misfired." It worked all the time, every time. During the 17-months I did not see or hear of any M-14s not working properly or misfiring. Cons ~ relatively heavy, too long, wood stock [bad for several reasons]. ******************************************************************************** Regarding "automatic firing" -- My fellow Marines and I did not have a significant problem with automatic fire. We used the auto-fire setting almost always in Vietnam. The M-14, like many auto-fire rifles, has an upward "movement" and it can be troublesome if the shooter does not have a firm grip and adequate strength. Auto-fire is not "intended" to place , for example, four bullets on the same spot. While in Vietnam I wanted my auto-fire to spread out a bit [from where it is aimed]. We often fired on automatic setting "from the hip" and did not aim, just "point and shoot." ********************************************************************************

[@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.

[@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

[@Atombender]

This reminds me of Marine Raiders being issued "updated" 1911's (Picatinny rail etc.) in 2012 and immediately after that, complaints soared (by the people who were actually using them). In the end, the Raiders got issued Glock 19's.

[@jaredbellard2777]

Exactly, the FN .45 T (even the HK45 I think mk2) outclasses any/ all 1911's in all aspects categories. I try to explain this to people that act like 1911's are the end all be all .45 within the tactical realm to include basic sport shooting/ self defense if you're going to spend 1k on a hand gun. $1k 1911's are when you start getting to better quality (not saying anything less expensive is junk). 1911's at that price point really don't hold a candle to FNs and HKs double stack hammer guns.

[@wayneericksen5374]

@@jaredbellard2777 Love the Browning Hi-Power w/ double stack 9mm 15 rd mag.

[@decodeddiesel]

I carried an M14 in an EBR Chassis with a fixed 10x Leupold for a few months during my second tour in Iraq with 1/502 IN. 101st Airborne, in and around the Mahmudiyah area during 2005 and 2006. I had shot an M1 Garand in high school for NRA Highpower and had grown an affinity for the M14, so I jumped at the chance to carry one. Huge mistake. In the chassis with the scope, a PEQ, a Surefire, and the Harris bipod we were issued it was BRUTAL to hump. The thing weighed more than a SAW with the paratrooper kit on it (short barrel, collapsible stock, ELCAN). It certainly was nothing special accuracy wise. I mistakenly figured that this rifle would be at least close to the M1 I shot in competition. Man was I wrong. We were issued M118, but these rifles could not reliably hit a man sized target past about 800 meters. It was an all-around fail. On a side note, a couple years after I got out I was at a large gunshow in Denver walking around, looking for ways to burn money. I overheard a conversation between two folks that went something like "You know that our boys aren't even using the M4 anymore overseas? That's right, they're all getting issued M14s! Those mouse guns just aren't putting down the tangos. They need 7.62." I had a good laugh. As I have come to expect, this was an outstanding video.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

decodeddiesel thank you for your service!

[@lon242]

Thank you for your service, and sharing your story - I've never heard much about the EBR in service. Has it since been phased out? If so, when? Can't even find that out.

[@justinmishler6758]

What did you have that could reliably hit a man size target past 800?

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Justin Mishler artillary

[@justinmishler6758]

Regular small arms wise😉

[@mastercheif98612]

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

[@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.

[@tonyv8925]

Summer of 1970, USAF basic...for small arms qualification they gave us worn out, first model M-16's...no chrome liner, no forward assist, 3 prong flash suppressor...rattled like a can of bolts and nuts...having grown up hunting with .22rimfire, I fell in love with the M-16, no more recoil than a .22magnum rimfire and very accurate...a very practical rifle for 300meters or less and with the new propellant (not that cheap charcoal that gums up the action) was a joy to shoot...Mr. Stoner did his homework on this rifle...

[@stevetreloar6602]

A .22 magnum is a centerfire cartridge/round.

[@jamesthomas5895]

No its not !!! Its rimfire learn your ammo before you comment.

[@stevetreloar6602]

james thomas, no need to get snippy, It turns out we are both right in part. The oversize rimfire .22 cartridge was never available in Australia. And my centrefire .22 Magnum had to be surrendered during the Australian gun buy back more than 20 years ago as I did not qualify for the licence required for centrefire cartridges/guns afterwards. I hate to resort to the Wiki, but it is the best link available to demonstrate all variants. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Hornet

[@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.

[@caseybennett944]

The m14 was built for a war that had already been fought. I still want one, but tactically speaking it was a decade obsolete by the time US troops got the first batch.

[@kevinstafford4475]

Unfortunately the military bureaucracy is willing to trade lives in order to save a penny. Reminds me of Rumsfeld comment early on with Afghanistan that "go to war with what you have" while we doing troop movements in Afghanistan in unarmored humvees. Then when folks started voicing outrage the solution was kevlar blankets to drape on the side and sit on. Every time I hear some politician calling for military action somewhere my answer is "sure, when you go then so will the rest".

[@0num4]

9-Hole Reviews: They did the same to us in Iraq 2005-06. Cited the demand for additional higher caliber rifles and medium machine guns (M60s were also issued, which were awesome). Our M14s weren't for regular humping -- they were relegated to SDM and EOD use, when applicable. I wouldn't want to have carried that thing as my primary. Though they were kinda cool to have around, if horribly impractical. As usual, it's easier for Uncle Sam to take a bunch of stuff out of mothballs, or to try to "fix" current equipment rather than spending loads more to procure new stuff. Spend a trillion $$ on a war, but don't want to drop $10 million more on a proper replacement.

[@removedot]

But the AK-47, made in 1947 wasn't outdated? The M-14 is still in use by the US Military in 2018, its the rifle in use the longest, so hardly sounds obsolete.

[@caseybennett944]

@@removedot whats your point? The Mosin Nagant was still in Russian inventory till 1998, giving it 107 years of total service. I can say with confidence a majority of that time it was obsolete. The Ak platform has seen constant updates that keep it modern as has the m16/m4. The only thing done for the m14 has been to make it heavier. Listen to the veterans of GWOT in this thread, they actually have current insight to what they needed, and what they didnt get out of the m14 or its half assed ebr adaptations.

[@kevinstafford4475]

@removedot, the AK was way ahead of the M14 and the irony is the M14 came about 10 years later and should have been a "AK killer". Weight, action open to the elements, unwieldy, etc... put the M14 behind the the AK from the get go. Now I know the M14 has a certain following. Understandable. It is the offspring of the M1 and is the last of the "lock, stock and barrel" military rifles. I enjoyed shooting the M14 from a static position in Afghanistan but definitely am glad not to have humped it. I own a M1A and do enjoy shooting it but my go-to rifle(s) is my M4 clone, my AK, and for longer ranges my MK12 build.

[@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.

[@acidfuzzpedals9986]

My uncle Larry served in Vietnam early(ish), around 65 or so. He said he loved th M14 because it's what he was trained with & initially issued. He said he was then issued the early M16 & hated it, because it was "unreliable" & "not accurate". I don't think he ever realized the issues he experienced were due to the early non-chromed parts & incorrect ammo. My father served 1970-71 & loved the M16. Another Vietnam vet who taught me guitar served around 1969 and also loved the M16.

[@desertwaffen5608]

Yeah it makes no sense when people try to compare a modern ar15 to an old m14 it’s baffling how they think the m14 is still relevant

[@lolwutyoumad]

A guy on the ground doesn’t care why it doesn’t work, it either does or it doesn’t. There is no such thing as “incorrect” ammo when you don’t have a choice about what ammo you are issued

[@santini4754]

I trained with the M-14 in 66. The M-14 was designed to face off against the Soviets in Europe. Thankfully, it never had to be used for that purpose. It was a great platform, and is still used by the American military to this day. I don't care what this guy has to say about it. The M 16 is also a great weapon' but that was not the case when it was first issued. I didn't get my hands on one until I deployed to the Americal Div. in 1968. It had seen several revisions to it by that time , and I was issued an M16A1 version. Also a great rifle. I'm Glad I didn't have to lug the M-14 all over I Corps, and i am equally glad I didn't have to square off with the commies in Europe with the M-16. The right tool for the right job. That's what we're talking about here. The M-14 isn't the Swiss Army Knife of firearms. No weapon is. This website is voicing an opinion, and so am I. You know what they say about opinions!

[@teucer4]

The M-14 is doing its job over in Europe, fighting Russia right now, but they’re in Ukrainian hands.

[@michaelatkin9649]

You sure about that??

[@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"

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@blueshade5553]

With the army it's not tradition. It's some general's ego.

[@billmoyer3254]

We had the manufacturing base to make our own weapons. The decision was pre Stoner design.

[@Jimbeaux]

Never underestimate money changing hands under the table . . . when military brass mingles in political circles.

[@SlytigerSurvival]

We still have them in our Army armories. Usually mortars and scouts, and standard infantry have 1 MK-14 EBR or an old stock m-14 per squads. I’d take the 417 any day over the m-14

[@kenb.1096]

Arent there plans for the m110a1 as a sdmr? We have g28 and they are pretty heavy but extremely accurate and reliable. Just wish our army would lighten it a bit.

[@kevinstafford4475]

Agreed on the 417. hands down superior. The M-14 doesn't even come close.

[@xxxxxx-tq4mw]

I loved my M14 so much that I went out and bought a rebuilt one @30 yrs ago.

[@mikeoneil5770]

I’ve managed to save up almost $5K, and the very next Springfield M1A that I see for sale will be coming home with me, along with as much .308 ammo as I’m able to carry. I LOVE the M14 platform, and I can’t wait to get one myself so that I can park it right beside my AR15 in my safe whenever I’m not out shooting either one of them!

[@mikepotter6426]

Hal Moore stated in the book about the battle that when they cleaned up the battle field they found many dead troopers who had been in the midst of clearing their m16 when they were killed. Basil Plumly refused to carry one so he was armed with his 1911. I know nothing about being in a war or weapons but I think mentioning Colonel Moore, his fantastic victory in November 65, then leaving out these salient points is a mistake

[@gixxerlouis]

just got back from the range with my son today...he brought his mauser...i brought my m1a...after a couple hours of shooting my son looked at me and sai "dad...the thing i like about the m1a is you just cant miss with it"...granted we were only shooting out to 400 yards with iron sights...non the less...the m1a is a fine and accurate firearm...

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Vessel of the Auditor great range gun.

[@richardsellsaz6865]

My favorite range rifle

[@Shadow0fd3ath24]

M1a is. 1950s m14 isn't special accuracy wise

[@richardsellsaz6865]

'M1a' is just a trademark name of the Springfield Armory company.The original M14 rifle were accurate for a battle rifle and the one's used today have all sorts of upgraded parts and barrel.

[@richardsellsaz6865]

The M14 is my favorite range rifle and I own four of them.I have National Match and they are excellent in every way possible.It is the Super Match that is really wide and extra heavy

[@rampart6557]

I carried an M-14 in Afghanistan in 2009. Excellent combat rifle, real stopping power and fine balance. At 10,000 feet in the Hindu Kush, my M-14 was very effective. No jamming issues, no stoppages.

[@glennryan8448]

I loved my M-14.. accurate and powerful. I own an M1A now.

[@VagoniusThicket]

I liked it too. Got my expert medal with it . As a medic in 1965 it was heavy to carry along with my medical bags. 👍

[@bigredone1030]

Bill Csatary meet any kit carsons in nam?

[@enlightenedwarrior7119]

@Lee Harvey Oswald the Italian bolt action did fine for you

[@ronaldstarkey4336]

I like mine also... for all the reasons you mentioned... M16 is also likeable...

[@spvillano]

@@enlightenedwarrior7119 proving, it ain't what someone has, it's who has it that counts.

[@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.

[@stevepowsinger733]

He explains the technology and politics of the weapons very well. I trained first on the M-14 but in AIT switched to the M-16. The 14 was a good traditional weapon but was indeed heavy, cumbersome, and semi-auto only. I had no trouble with my M-16 in Nam and they did upgrade it for my unit mid-1968. He keeps referring to the AR-10 in a confusing manner.

[@donaldwhitfill632]

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

[@gordonpeden6234]

Excellent Vid, well thought out reasoned argument. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of damage one incompetent can do. "Strudel or Studeler the Ordinance Noodle"

[@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.

[@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

[@rangefinder3538]

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

[@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.

[@stewartw.9151]

Friend of mine was in the South African Defence Force in the 1970s up on the border with Angola and actually in Angola. He carried what we know here as the R1 rifle which is actually the FAL. He told me that the terrorist insurgents they fought used to try to take cover behind trees sometimes when other cover was sparse in the usual savannah landscape. The R1 would happily shoot right through the tree and kill them. They never seemed to learn the lesson.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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 😅

[@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.

[@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

[@kurtwpg]

"Tradition can be a bad thing." Preach it, brother. The reason the M14 was a .308 bore is because the M1892 was a .308 bore. Personally I think a .257 or .264 would have been ideal and probably would have made the second change to .224 unnecessary.

[@23GreyFox]

Or for example, if Germany went with 7mm Mauser instead 8mm before WW1. How would be 7x33mm STG44?

[@morocomole4567]

Now we have 6.8x51 go figure lol

[@astartesrex]

@@morocomole4567 Honestly .277 Fury is like the ultimate validation of .280 British.

[@smokepeddler]

BTW I wish I had an M14 in Kandahar. Some units were actually being issued M14's in Afghanistan. We were constantly outranged . Engaging at over 500 yards. The Taliban knew the 5.56 round did not have enough steam past 400 meters. Nothing wrong with 7.62×51./308. Yes the M14 is a heavy pig, yes 7.62×51 drops. But if you know the drop rate you can easily compensate. AR's are an Amazing rifle if the mags are tight and the rifle is clean. And you do not have to engage beyond 400 meters. BUT,....I am not a fan of 5.56 at all! I think we smashed about 1/3 of the mags issued so they wouldn't be re issued.

[@DawnOfTheDead991]

Why not an FN instead? It's 7.62

[@smokepeddler]

@@DawnOfTheDead991 FN would have been great. Except the U.S. has M14's in surplus. Not FN's.

[@smokepeddler]

@@8166PC1 LR 10. AR platform chambered in 7.62 would absolutely be a better standard issue. What theater of combat have you been deployed too?

[@smokepeddler]

Only downside would be a couple more lbs payload for load out. Let me tell you. I will hump that extra weight in exchange for more power and range all day long

[@DawnOfTheDead991]

@@smokepeddler AR 10s

[@outdoorfreedom9778]

I was issued the M-14 in 68. My problem with it during basic training was the weight, I only weighed 140 pounds plus my hat size was 6 7/8 and the spaghetti strap in my brain bucket couldn't be cinched down enough to keep it in place. The rifle weighed in at 11.5 pounds plus all the ammo. I was a shootest before I ever went into the Army but the recoil would knock my helmet over my eyes after about 3 rounds. We got to fire them on full auto, crap, you couldn't stay close to the target. I was one of only 8 to qualify Expert on record range so I didn't hate the rifle but I had been shooting from the age of 4 and I was 20 at the time. The only people in my basic company that got to use the M-16 were those that got their orders as 11B AIT. I found the 14 a good range rifle but wouldn't ever want to have it in a jungle. When I was issued the M-79 it was a relief to get rid of that slug.

[@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

[@jankorinek2397]

The best video I have ever seen on that subject. Greetings from the Czech republic, Central Europe!

[@SigmaSheepdog]

There was a little know cartridge called the .276 Pederson that was developed in the mid to late 20"s and was designed to replace the 30-06 cartridge for use in the M1 Garand. It was rejected, however, by then Army Chief of Staff General MacArthur. With a bullet weight of 140 or so grains and a velocity of approximately 2400 fps, it definitely would have been a step in the right direction for an intermediate cartridge. The slight down side was that the case was about the same length as the 7.62x51 or 308 Win.

[@rhlink8253]

It was for 03 not m1

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Velvet, the .276 Pedersen wasn't a "little cartridge," or an intermediate in any way. It was still a long-actioned case, a full-sized, full-power rifle cartridge. Just one of .27 caliber and somewhat slimmer profile, which is why the Garand en-bloc could hold ten instead of the eight 30-06 rounds it ultimately used. It would have been an intriguing choice as an intermediate, but of course that didn't happen for the reason you mentioned. In fairness to General MacArthur, the whole concept of an intermediate cartridge did not exist in that time, now more than eighty years ago. If the 30-06 had performed poorly to date, there might have been more of a push to change to the .276 but that wasn't the case. The 30-06 had an admirable record up to that point, and had done everything asked of it- so there wasn't much of an institutional push to change to something else. Why fix what isn't broken, was probably their mindset.

[@winkleried]

Just so we are clear that was General Arthur MacArthur that made the decision and not his son Douglass......

[@cristianespinal9917]

Great analysis. I really enjoyed this video and just as good is reading through the first hand accounts in the comments section. Really phenomenal stuff. Love reading the experiences of older vets.

[@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.

[@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.

[@AirborneEd1]

I was with the 101st. Airborne Div. from 1963-1965. We received the M-16 in 1964. The 327 of the Division went to Vietnam in 1965 as did the 7th. Air Cav. The also took the M-16 not the M-14. For a year I was one of two men in the squad carrying a fully automatic M-14 with bipod. I never had a problem firing it on automatic utilizing a 3 round burst or more if necessary.

[@denystull355]

I loved my M-16 when I was in the Army. How disappointed I was when being discharged I couldn't keep it. It is a very underrated weapon.

[@bigredone1030]

Denys Tull ar10 is better

[@denystull355]

@@bigredone1030 I wouldn't know. AR-10 didn't exist in the 70s.

[@bigredone1030]

@@denystull355 No I mean that ar10s are better than a 22 cal rifle. They exist now

[@buzzkill808raven2]

@@bigredone1030 ak is better than the ar10

[@bigredone1030]

@@buzzkill808raven2 In what way? Certainly not in power or accuracy stock out of the box.

[@msantifort]

I agree, the FN FAL with the intermediate round would have been the best thing. 30 year long range shooter.

[@andreahighsides7756]

Imagine a FAL in 6.5 creedmoor! It would even do full-auto pretty well

[@bassault]

@Trevor Lahey Calm down fuddy

[@mikeshea398]

The FAL is a great weapon, however one bump on that unprotected rear sight and you're fucked.

[@real_fjcalabrese]

I strongly suspect if the FAL or G3 had been adopted, they would have been in service at least into the 1980s.

[@RedXlV]

Especially if it was a 7mm version. The G3 especially would've benefited if the .280 British had been the standard NATO round, because 7.62x51 pushed the limits of what its action could handle.

[@treyriver5676]

I somewhat doubt it the M16 for all of his disadvantages had the one lightness of weapon and lightness of ammunition. Overall after Decades of improvements the M16 is one of the best rifles ever made it was not when it came out.

[@RedXlV]

A 7x43mm FAL could've been significantly lighter than the one that actually went into production. Likewise for the G3.

[@mihaeltomasovic]

originally it was designed for the 7.92x33mm Kurz cartridge. i think that wouldn't have been the worst decision in the world even though it was a pre-ww2 design in Germany (with the MK concept which dates all the way back to the inter-war years and really picked up steam around 1938 before the war started). however, the 7x43mm or even the 7.92x41mm CETME (the original CETME cartridge) which used a crazy good Gerät-06 platform and had an aluminum lead-cored bullet that could travel all the way out to 1,000m and still be accurate in full-automatic fire! the best choice was obviously to move on; however, that wasn't plain to see in the beginning... hindsight is 20/20, my friends...

[@harryguy76]

It wasn't when it was first issued cause the Army caused it to fail...they knew it's problems...they knew how to fix it but didn't which cost American lives...no cleaning kits...no chrome chambers and issued ball ammo which didn't function properly in the weapon...which they did on purpose...all to protect contracts with their buddies who likely gave kick backs for the contracts...all over greed and money...nothing to do with tradition...

[@Elkarlo77]

The 7.62x51mm Nato is a powerful ammunition. When i was conscript in the German Bundeswehr i shot the 7.62x51 severaltimes even full auto (Burst 3-5 shots) from a contemporary Rifle the HK G3A3 (1957 adopted for military service, my personal conscript Rifle was from 1962 with new Handguard and Buttstock to be a A3). It kicks like a mule but you can stay on target at 100 Meters firing bursts. It has the same features as the AR-10 or FN-FAL: Recoil in the line of the Buttstock and Pistolgrip. The Main Advantage of the more Powerfull "Battlerifle" Ammunition is that it is a good general-purpose machine Gun Ammunition as well. We used the MG-3 (essentially a rechambered MG-42 ) with the 7.62x51 Nato and it was good for long range cover Fire like the M60. Everyone had the same Ammunition, today the 5.56x45mm "Assault Rifle" Ammunition is lacking in Power for a general purpose machine Gun, so you are back to light and medium machine guns with different supply Chain. To fix the M-14 for fullautomatic: Barrel bellow Gas operation, Pistol Grip for Inline Stock, but that would be a complete new Rifle and complete new tooling. Every other 50's Gun did it (starting with the AK-47), only the M-14 stayed in the WW1 pattern of the M1-Grand, which is great for Bolt-Single Action but not for semi/full-automatic fire.

[@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.

[@gmoops8986]

Ike warned about the "military-industrial" complex). This would seem to be an example. This is small potatoes to the fighter aircraft or the ineffective bombers contracted, then scrapped for the next set of kickbacks and bribes, and the complex continues. And we blame the "banana republics" of corruption? Whoo-hee! This is so deep, they/we don't know how to "follow the money". The old adage: I wish the Pentagon had to hold a bake sale to buy another bomber holds true today.

[@nickma71]

Nonsense...the problem is the swamp. Worrying about the military is like worrying about guns and violence.

[@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.

[@nicklewis6052]

I hate to be that guy but some of the info you presented on the development of the M1 Garand is wrong. The variants with the 20 round BAR magazines were not the original intention; the original requirements for the new semi auto rifle were for a smaller caliber which would eventually become the .276 Pederson. It was also specified that the rifle was to take 10 round en-block clips. The change back to .30-06 is what dropped the capacity to 8 rounds. The trials variants with the BAR mags didn’t come until after adoption, and failed for reliability issues and weight issues more so than worries of troops wasting ammo. Additionally the reason for the very long gas system on the Garand is that it was originally designed as a gas trap system rather than a regular gas port in the barrel. Once it was found that the gas port was simpler and didn’t have an appreciable impact on wear, the already long gas system was changed to what we commonly see on garands.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

But you will be!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@pebear]

It all depends on the war. Afghanistan we see the need for the M14 because of the long ranges being shot. The US Navy uses some M14 for Ship to Ship fighting too. There is a use for the M14 and every Vietnam Soldier that I have asked has said they preferred the M14 over the M16. The short stroke is much better and reliable than the direct impingement, especially with teh smoked powder ammo the Army way buying. Remember it was Curtis LeMay that bought the M16 first for the Air Force and the Air Force bought smokeless powder Ammo that was designed for the M16. It was then the ARmy started to give the M16 a look see. Then of course the Mini 14 was too late to the show to even get a look. I think the AR platform is a winning decision even if they did not capitalize on it's molecularity until the Gulf war....