"Appearing in the late 1950s it was badly dated the day the first unit equipped started cleaning the cosmoline off their weapons." Wow, and I suppose you can tell me what was so outdated compared to the FAL and G3. It would appear you are penalizing it for being 20 years ahead of its time. That dog won't hunt.

>>Wow, and I suppose you can tell me what was so outdated compared to the FAL and G3. It would appear you are penalizing it for being 20 years ahead of its time. That dog won't hunt.<< The M14 itself, not including the accompanying 7.62x51mm round the US Army Ordnance inflicted on the free world at the same time? a) Overall its an archaic design with negligible improvement over the M1 except for the new mag. With everything the US Army Ordnance people had to look at and work with in the 1940s and 1950s, they opted to go for the zero innovation approach, which largely explains why their product was tossed out of service with a rapidity that would make a Krag-Jorgensen blush. b) Zero innovation on the operating system compared to the FAL (adjustable gas system will keep it shooting forever, long after an M14 fails) or the G3 (roller lock system was the starting point for any number of highly successful designs). c) SAW version never worked worth a damn, unlike the FAL HBAR, which, while still not an ideal can at least show where it fired shots in anger. d) M1/M14 is inherently unsuitable for mounting most optics due to the open action, meaning its either scout mounting and very long eye relief optics or less desirable side mounting schemes. This feature significantly restricted the ability of the M14 to grow into emergency technologies and dogged the design in its M21 incarnation, etc. Both the FAL and the G3 proved comparatively easy to plus up with optics, perhaps helping to explain why the British were using optics on some of their FALs pretty shortly after the M14's less than glorious retirement from American sevice. The actual history of the design pretty much indicates that some people within the Army/DoD recognized the weapon's flaws and were pushing to get rid of it even before it entered service. d) For the technology of the era, the M14 was overly clumsy using rifle grenades compared to the FAL. e) Wood stocks may have appealed to purists, but also help explain why the weapon was pitched. Of course, the dreadful cartridge choice and use of 1920s technology in the basic design had more to do with that. Lack of a pistol grip in the late 1950s just shows how backwards the guys running the show at Ordnance were at the time, as well. More?

When you are twenty or more years ahead of the competition in design what innovation do you need? Age is not adequate criticism, just means the original design was that good. The M14E1 did okay as an automatic weapon, as well as any of the battle rifles of that caliber selected to perfrom a mission that was called for in desperation due to a lousy choice of caliber, probably the only point we agree on. Well, not the only, the different mounting for optics worked well enough but the FAL and G3 handled this better. But then, if it gets a little dusty and won't fire the optics don't mean squat do they. Please note that the only area I have repeatedly stated was the reliability, after which the rest is only frosting. Wood stocks on original, yes, but I turned in many with the replacment fiberglass stocks in 68. It would appear you are not as familiar with the M14 as you think. And it did have an adjustable gas system. And rifle grenades were outed pretty quick once good grenade launchers appeared so how good were there? The optics and appearance are the only pluses the G3 and FAL had as a battle rifle over the M14. I was eager to fire the FAL's used by the Australian contingent in Vietnam but after firing it I was happy to return to the 14 while waiting for the 16. Have to admit I never fired the G3 so my opinion of that rifle is based on stories heard. If you have nothing better to add I guess we will have to agree to disagree. One wonders why that POS M14 was even considered in the same thread.

I carried an M-14 for a very sort time and I liked it. I have only fam fired the SLR version of the Fal and have no experience with G-3 so I cannot make an accurate comparison. I have no complaints about the M-14. Later versions did come with plastic furniture and there was a pistol grip design available. The open Garand style actions was what made it so reliable and for my money the Garand action still gives the best combination of both accuracy and reliability out there and any replacement for the M-16 should use some version of the Garand design. Would a HIBAR M-16 be any better as a SAW than the M-14 was? Where thier SAW version of the FAL or G-3? The problem of mounting optics could have been overcome as it was with M1. The civilian market has come up with easy to mount Weaver style rails for Garand style actions (M-1A1 and Mini-14 for example) with acceptable eye relief and stock weld for most optics. The M-14 should not have been made into a sniper weapon. The Marine Corps was smart enough in this regard to bad the Army was slower to catch on. Optics was also a problem with the M-16, ever try to get a good stock weld with optics on the carrying handle? That the M-14 was not good for rifle grenades should not come as a surprise given the US move to a grenade launcher the M-79 which the US hierarchy seems to prefer to this day-another topic for discussion. The “short” life span of the M-14 is deceiving. McNamara brought about the early retirement of the M-14. McNamara and his whiz kids liked the M-16 so much they thought everybody should have one. Of course that makes for a whole other discussion thread but I will say the McNamara and his kids actions on many things were near criminal. The M-14 continues to “soldier on” though not in large numbers. Special ops types still use it for its reliability, accuracy and range. The Marine Corps gave serious consideration to reissuing it for the first Gulf War because of its reliability and hitting power at a distance. They had sufficient numbers in stock to equip their forces in the Gulf. Tens of thousands have also been given to some of the Baltic nations looking to equip their military with a NATO caliber weapon. This is not to say everybody who carried it liked it. One of my “older” mentors in the Marine Corps referred to it as an M-1 with a birth defect.

The ART 1&2 scopes were center mounted on the M-21. It was the M-1D sniper version of the Garand that required an offset scope. This was because of the eight round loading clip that had to be inserted from the top, not the way empty brass ejected. The AR-15 action looked like a looser for an infantry rifle when it first appeared as well. WWII and Korea vets hated it. CSM Plumley of LZ X-Ray fame wouldn't carry it. There have been a lot of modifications to get to where we are with that system today, while the M-14 has been less modified, exept for accurizing for Army shooting teams. You are starting to see some modifications to the basic design though; and the basic design was reliable and accurate enough that I have to wonder if it wouldn't be a great rifle in the 6.8 or 6.5 if it had a synthetic stock, pistol grip, shortened barrel, and Picatinny rail mounting an Aimpoint.

>>When you are twenty or more years ahead of the competition in design what innovation do you need? Age is not adequate criticism, just means the original design was that good. << Ah, and how could I forget? Of the three weapons in question, the M14 is hands down the worst in terms of ergonomics. FAL and G3 were built by someone who had the idea of killing people on the battlefield in mind, the M14 seems to have been built by someone with a fine appreciation for blasting deer but no special consideration for what was needed in a battlefield weapon. As you say, the M1 Garand was twenty years ahead of the competition (sort of -- part of that status was based on a perceived need in the US that was lacking elsewhere, or at least lacking in funding), but apparently the US Ordnance folks took this to mean, twenty-odd years later, that they were still on the top of their game. They, of course, were not, and the rapid exit of the M14 from US service attests to the fact that it was rapidly realized that a serious mistake had been made. This does not compare well at all to the service history of the FAL or the G3. >>Please note that the only area I have repeatedly stated was the reliability, after which the rest is only frosting.<< Yes, and you've yet to produce anything supporting your claim beyond "because I said so." As I have noted, the success of the FAL and the G3 versus the M14 speaks volumes for the relative merits of the three weapons. You seem to be under the impression that weapons procurement outside the US boils down to something akin to electing a prom queen or some such, but even if this were the case (and I would certainly think that the military establishments of nations like the UK, Canada, West Germany, etc., would take offense to your suggestion that they, unlike the good old US of A, fell for a flashy sales brochure and a "Vote FAL for Your Prom Queen" poster) your point only works if one ignores the mountain of money the US was pumping into foreign military aid. A great many nations aligned with the west could have had M14s for the cost of postage, if even that, yet there was a consistent desire to avoid the weapon. When no one, not even the producing nation, seems to particularly want a weapon system, this raises serious questions about its alleged merits, as I think you will agree.

Gentlemen, Not so. Soviets had two working concepts of semiauto rifle too in 30'ies. Out of these Tokarev rifle emerged victorious. (SVT-37(?) and later version SVT-41). It had possibility of mounting optics, accuracy was a bit questionable(Infantry model had only 10cm of rifling in barrel, Sniper version had full rifling.). Power of Round fell in between of 30-06 and 7,62N with 7,62x53R. But Soviets dropped their battle rifles for you-know-who.

There were all kinds of designs and even some that went into production, but not in mass use by any service before the M1.

"There were all kinds of designs and even some that went into production, but not in mass use by any service before the M1." Such as the G43 (gewher 43 (sorry for bad spelling)). BUt ya, the M1 was the only SLR that was standard issue for troops.

If there's an enduring myth making the rounds on these boards, it is that the Galil was originally designed as a 7.62 X 51 NATO rifle. No Israeli trooper has ever seen a MAG-caliber Galil until VERY few of the Gala"Tz sniper rifles were introduced, mainly to SPECOPS police units, to replace their worn-out...M-14's, or until he went backpacking in the Andes. The Galil, as well as it's competitor, the unfortunate, but better, "Gal" design (http://tinyurl.com/zpdks, sorry for the Hebe, pls. scroll down for the gun porn.) was designed from the start to chamber the 5.56 X 45 NATO cartridge, and to be as reliable as the AK-47. The trusted but innovation-free and decidedly unsexy Kalashnikov clone, designed/plagiarized by IMI's Belashnikov (yeah!) is the one that became known as the Galil. It won because the IMI had better PR than gruff and grumpy maverick Uziel Gal, with the decision-making Rhino, the late Gen. Rafael Eitan. Early Galils had a funny FAL-like carrying handle, but yes, they were all in 5.56. The leftover 7.62 ammo was probably linked up and merrily fired away by our ubiquitous MAG MG's, and this round is still manufactured today for precisely that. The 7.62 Galil assault rifles with these kewl 25-rounds straight mags were made, however, for export customers, mainly in Latin America. I hear that these countries are as happy to ditch them for M-16/M-4's, as the IDF was with the ordinary 5.56 version, and for precisely the same reason. I used to carry a Galil in the reserve, and I'm just a civilian but trust me, it is the sort of object I'd sooner weld castor wheels underneath and take in tow, rather than schlepp it. The elders tell me that the RoM"at (SLR) rifle was uniformly hated and could not be trusted to fire when it needed to, and was even heavier and clumsier to carry than a Galil, and that Izzie FAL model did not even have a folding stock like the British and Argie rifles of the Falklands/Malvinas war. It was not uncommon for Israeli infantrymen to leave their FN's on the floor of their M-3 "ZakhLa"Mim" and get going with the much-handier AK-47's they had just captured from the enemy. I'm told that the South-Africans hated their FAL's too, and were happy to trade them in for... Galils. The M-14 was supplied here in large numbers by the 1973 Yom-Kippur war US airlift, as were great quantities of M-16A1's and even a few Mk-19 AGL's. They were never really introduced to service since the entire World was busy converting to 5.56 at the time, except in territorial and police auxiliary units, until the bad old Eighties of Lebanon infamy, when they were found to be just the sniper rifles we needed to keep the hizballonim happy. Most nations seems to have been just as happy as we were to ditch their FALs, except for Brasil that made a lighter version in 5.56, and including the original perpetrator, Belgium. The only one of these battle rifles to be still be in service in any numbers is therefore the G-3, that equips the armies of Pakistan, Iran, and Mexico, and is probably still carried by some Greek, German, Cypriot, and Spanish units (in both the original Santa Barbara-CETME and HK guises.) The last large user of FAL's I know of, India, is replacing them in a hurry with their domestic 5.56 AK-74 clone, and with cheap AKM knockoffs from Bulgaria. My favorite among the big rifles of old is the Swiss SIG-510 since it's such a well-made beauty, but my castor wheel rule certainly applies here!