It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

M14: Back 2 Waste The M16 and M4:

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I own two 1903 springfields. One stock military...the early version with the fold down sight in front of the bolt. Not the peep sight and the other one is a heavy barreled target rifle. Both shoot very well. I also own a M1 Garand. My Garand shoots well but I seem to group better with the 1903 springfield. My Garand is stock and there are modifications one can do to make them more accurate but the springfield seems to be more accurate from out of the box. For my M1 Garand I am more intrested in a rugged combat rifle than a delicately modified accurate target rifle.
I never was able to own a M1A/M14 typ rifle but I am glad to see them coming back. I understand that some of this rebirth has to do with the need for longer range rifles in places like the vast open areas of Afganistan. The M16 series rifles have been found wanting there.
The new modifications ..in line stocks look like just what the doctor ordered. No question about the potency of the caliber. I reload 30.06s so I am familiar with the very large bullet selection for .30 caliber rifles.
Intresting to me how new needs and new technologies applied to older tools often result in a kind of reissuance or rebirth of these olde but very servicable and potent tools. Glad to see the M14 come back on line.

Thanks,
Orangetom




posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
yeah the m14 is a great weapon it is just the government didn't give it a chance



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The M14 never left. Let me start by saying that I used mostly the M16 when I was in the Army (8 years) . I was pretty accurate with little kick and was generally good in a range situation. It however had the problems that they are seeing in the gulf. I kept mine clean all the time and it would still jam on too many occasions for me to truly trust it. Not a lot but enough. The 5.56mm also needs to hit major vitals to stop the enemey. The old M14 was a little too cumbersome for what was needed in Vietnam. It however was great when it came to reliablity, accuracy, firepower.
I now own an springfield M1a and have dropped it into the troy industries mcs. I it amazing. I hear the Sage and Vltor systems are pretty good too. I have all the good of the M16 and M14 without the bad.
Too bad the Military didn't redesign the M14 with some of the features we are seeing now being used on the M14 paltform. It could have had a shorter barrel, improved ergonomics, maybe a different round ( somewhere in between the 7.62 and the 5.56) and would have been a much better battle rifle than the m16 or now M4. (I still can't believe we are still using these things. Isreal is dumping the m4's .)
If the military had done this, we probably would never had looked at the Stoner model. I think the military should figure out a new battle rifle and in the mean time fit more soldiers with an M14 with some upgrades. We don't always go to wars in jungle and spray and pray. There will never be a true do it all weapon. There will always be drawbacks to just about anything used. The SCAR and Masada look like some good contenders though. Interchangable barrels, Modular, etc.... ( I also like the AA12 to be given to a few soldiers in a platoon)
What it all comes down to is keeping our soldiers alive and equiped with the best possible equipment available.
People who make the decisions for our troops have rarely had to be in a real combat situation and don't know what works and is the best for our troops.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
You should really take a look at the battle in Mogadishu, back in the 90's. Look at what weapon, the Delta boys were using. More importantly, find out why they choose them, over the M 4's.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SEAL Trident
Out of hate of the .22, I've been searching 4 some more M14 info a few weeks ago, and found these:

troyind.com...

www.ukasc.net...

www.ukasc.net...

www.specwargear.com...

www.specwargear.com...

If it can b equiped with a nade launcher, it kills the M4 SOPMOD.

This is A LOT better.

This has been out 4 a long while now, and I'm glad:


[edit on 29-6-2005 by SEAL Trident]



How can you even compare a .22 caliber weapon to a .30 caliber weapon? Each weapon system has its own unique "roll" in which it was designed for.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
You should really take a look at the battle in Mogadishu, back in the 90's. Look at what weapon, the Delta boys were using. More importantly, find out why they choose them, over the M 4's.




Somebody watched a little too much Blackhawk Down again. Ellaborate on your comment you said man.......... whats your point is what Im trying to get at.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
My point, is that, in units, that are authorized to choose their own weapons (rather than a standard M4, M9, etc.), a lot of operators will choose an updated M-14, and a 1911. That is my point.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
The best battle rifle ever designed for service use i n the US was and still is the M14. I served 8 years in the military and used the m16 and variants most of that time time. After I got out I had the option to buy the civilian version of the M16 (AR15). I bought the civilian m14 (m1a). It was twice as expensive, but well worth the purchase. I never trusted the m16. I had it jam up even after cleaning the heck out of it on a constant basis. I have never once had the m14 (m1a) jam, not even once.
The problem for the m14 was it came out at exactly the wrong time. It wasn't the greatest in the thick jungles of VN but has been effective everwhere else. It was originally designed to take over the job of a lot of different weapons but didn't really do well in automatic. duh! I am really amazed how our miltary functions with so many mistakes made.
The m16 was lighter and shot smaller bullets with more ammo available. When the enemy is tiny, a tiny bullet but can be somewhat effective. Also the extra ammo capacity allowed for the spray and pray jungle firing used so often. Had the military had some of the modifications available for the M14 today in the past( i.e. sgage ebr, troy mcs etc..., we would have never had the M16. The m16 has worked out some kinks but is still more prone to jamming, fires a very inferior bullet although pretty accurately and doesn't even do very well in close quaters because of the geneva conventions ammunition policies. Fast forward to today and they have brought the m14 back because the m16 can't do the job. It will be a long time before the m16/m4 is completely gone but it is happening slowly but surely. Eventually we will give our soldiers a better rifle. probably something is a 6.8 or 6.5 mm. In the mean time take what is left of the M14's and put them in the hands ofthe soldiers. For close quarters, bring back the tommy gun ( never shot one but it throws a lot of .45 ammo) because the m4 sucks. p.s. goverment. The 9mm barretas 92F suck too.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Heres a few links to Semi-M-14 SOCOM:
springfield-armory.intermediaoutdoors.com...

springfield-armory.intermediaoutdoors.com...

Zindo

P.S. I like my M-4, if only because I can carry it and 5-600 rnds and not get bogged down. .308 is surly a better round but its nearly twice the weight of .223. My M-4C is 5 lbs less to hump than an M-1a.

[edit on 8/22/2008 by ZindoDoone]




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join