Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: M-14 or M-1?
Amorphous Blob    11/30/2008 7:32:50 PM
Was it even worthwhile for the US military to have adopted the M-14? It was maybe especially unsuitable for use in Vietnam, but it was superceded almost about as soon as it could have been. Would the US have been almost just as well off keeping the M-1 until the M-16 was adopted? Or, put another way, if the US could have adopted it in 1943, would it have been a better weapon in WW2?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
YelliChink       1/3/2009 2:07:02 PM

The United States almost adopted the FN FAL in the 1950's, but chose the M-14 largely because the FAL was a foreign design.  In my opinion this is another dumb reason to not adopt a weapon, but in the 1950's not being made in the United States was often a disqualifying trait for weapons systems competing for adoption with the US military.  This is part of the reason why the US military got stuck with the crummy M-60 machine gun, while there were much better designs out there.  One of those designs, the FN MAG, recently replaced the M-60 in the US military and will probably continue to soldier on for another decade or two. 

 
AR-10 is probably better than both FAL and M14. It came a bit too late in the game, though.
 
M60 actually isn't that bad. MAG is better crew served weapon. It is designed to be a crew served weapon. M60 was designed to be able to fire from shoulder and hip, and so it compromised. Modern M60E4 has most of the flaws worked out. The only problem is that most armies already use MAG, PKM or MG42, hence only scant market from SpecOps.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       1/3/2009 2:18:05 PM



AR-10 is probably better than both FAL and M14. It came a bit too late in the game, though.

M60 actually isn't that bad. MAG is better crew served weapon. It is designed to be a crew served weapon. M60 was designed to be able to fire from shoulder and hip, and so it compromised. Modern M60E4 has most of the flaws worked out. The only problem is that most armies already use MAG, PKM or MG42, hence only scant market from SpecOps.


YC is one of the family of experts like Horsesoldier to whom I pay attention on topics like this.
 
WHY was the AR-10 possibly a better rifle than the FN FAL?
 
Curious.
 
Herald

 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       1/3/2009 2:32:21 PM

YC is one of the family of experts like Horsesoldier to whom I pay attention on topics like this.

WHY was the AR-10 possibly a better rifle than the FN FAL?
 
Curious.
 Herald

Horsesoldier has more trigger time and definitely is true expert. I'm just an armchair gun nut with some experience on guns.
 
FAL isn't quite superb weapon. It looks good, but doesn't function as good as it looks. I've heard that Israelis had some trouble with FAL under sand condition. Overall, it isn't a bad weapon, but isn't a superb one.
 
AR-10 is the lightest of the three. It operates just like an AR-15 and shoots accurately. You see US Army brought back M14 and bought M110 SASS as sniper rifles or marksman rifle, and you see HK made PSG-1 and MSG-90 from G3, but none in the world tried to make a sniper rifle out of FAL. That tells me something about FAL.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Thank you.   1/3/2009 2:39:58 PM
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       1/3/2009 2:57:56 PM
I think that it is more correct to say that the AR-15 operates like an AR-10.

The AR10 wins over an M14 as a more modern design - straight line stock and a receiver that you can mount thing on quite well.

It wins versus a FAL as it was designed for .308 in the first place, while the FAL was stretched from a .280. Plus the FAL has a lousy receiver for mounting optics on. The British Army had real problems with the SUIT sight on the L1A1.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Thank you as well, FK.   1/3/2009 10:03:57 PM

I think that it is more correct to say that the AR-15 operates like an AR-10.




The AR10 wins over an M14 as a more modern design - straight line stock and a receiver that you can mount thing on quite well.




It wins versus a FAL as it was designed for .308 in the first place, while the FAL was stretched from a .280. Plus the FAL has a lousy receiver for mounting optics on. The British Army had real problems with the SUIT sight on the L1A1.


FK is another expert to whom I pay attention.
 
Herald


 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Why let a sleeping thread lie?   1/29/2009 11:59:29 PM
Anyone have experience with the Beretta BM59 series?  Like the M14, this was a reskin of the Garand action to accommodate a box magazine and selective fire.  Some sources I read, seem to like it better.
 
Any thoughts from folks here with hands-on?  
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics