- 67
- 190 588
Blue Ridge Shooting
เข้าร่วมเมื่อ 16 มี.ค. 2012
Just some dude in the woods yappin about stuff.
6.5 Grendel. The Right Cartridge at The Wrong Time.
6.5 Grendel. The Right Cartridge at The Wrong Time.
มุมมอง: 35
วีดีโอ
Pizza Box Marksman: Romanian Redemption
มุมมอง 84วันที่ผ่านมา
Pizza Box Marksman: Romanian Redemption
FN FS2000: Mediocre At Best
มุมมอง 2942 หลายเดือนก่อน
Join me as I ramble about another discontinued gun from a bygone age.
Pizzabox Marksman: Finnish Mosin.
มุมมอง 2424 หลายเดือนก่อน
Is it as accurate as the Russian Ex Sniper?
Pizza Box Marksman: Mosin Ex-Sniper
มุมมอง 2204 หลายเดือนก่อน
After nearly 80 years, can the old girl still perform?
Beretta AR-70 Quick And Dirty Range Review
มุมมอง 891ปีที่แล้ว
Beretta AR-70 Quick And Dirty Range Review
Windham Weaponry Gov Rifle: Initial Impressions
มุมมอง 18K2 ปีที่แล้ว
Windham Weaponry Gov Rifle: Initial Impressions
American AK Manufacturers; My Two Cents
มุมมอง 1.3K2 ปีที่แล้ว
American AK Manufacturers; My Two Cents
AUG After Range Report and Primary Arms Slx 1x Prism.
มุมมอง 1812 ปีที่แล้ว
AUG After Range Report and Primary Arms Slx 1x Prism.
You know who really got it all wrong? Those unfortunate 224 valkyrie guys. It was pushed so hard and it just never really delivered
@@ericramsey567 dude forreal 🤣 it was everywhere.... And then it was nowhere.
um I think you mean 6mm arc
@@ericramsey567 yeah, that's what I said man
@blue_ridge_shooting762 for real thank you for comparing the 2. It feels bizarre how similar the discussion of the cartridges feel. Just 15ish years different. Grendel beat out 6.8 when we all thought 6.8 would win. Now it's all in on 6mm arc and I've seen this all before.
Dude is giving off a Devin Ratray vibe from the gun cabinet scene in "Blue Ruin".
There are Ukrainian reports of captured Russian scoped Mosin-Nagant.
@@Name-q5h crazy to think they're still being carried to battle
P =passed inspection when it was a M14
FAL gang checking it
Forty year love affair with this weapon.
Judged poor mostly on full auto performance, wood furniture (tropical rot and swelling) and weight compared to M-16. The FAL with 7.62 had the same problems. On long patrols prevalent during Vietnam era it's harder to carry sufficient ammo (no front lines). Just bad timing for M-14.
The M14 is a very problematic weapon. From an military standpoint, this thing was a maintenance hog, and the Ordnance records prove it. Manufacturing was problematic too, as the Winchester and H&R guns were at first blowing up (which is crazy considering both made Garand receivers in WWII) and they were having terrible accuracy issues (in one test conducted by the USMC, out of 250 rifles pulled at random given to shooters of varying skill level, 98% qualified with the M1, while only 60% qualified with the M14). To be fair, the ammunition wasn’t that accurate either, but remember, rifle accuracy standards weren’t not the same back then. M14s had to meet a standard accuracy of 5.6 MOA at 100 yards in order to be considered acceptable for usage, and many guns weren’t even making that. There were several other manufacturing problems and quality control issues, one being that tuning fork of a flash hider on that barrel. The magazines on the M14 are also terrible, it is possibly the worst iteration of a rock and lock mag out there. The fact that the auto trip lever on the full auto versions is on the OUTSIDE of the gun is certainly one of the decisions of all time too. Fast forward to the usage of the Sage EBR chassis systems, and these things can’t even be field stripped without the guns from going to 1 MOA to 6 MOA. That’s not just bad for a modern day DMR, IMO, that’s bad for any rifle at all. But, the thing that pisses me off about the M14 is how much time was wasted making this thing. All this is is just an improved M1 Garand that is select fire and feeds from magazines. We had that in 1944 in the form of the T20 rifle. It took the Italians 2 years to make the BM59 and 1 year for a Peruvian gunsmith to do what it took the government over a decade to do. One of the main reasons why the T44E4 rifle was chosen over the T48 (FAL) was the thought that the rifle could use existing Garand tooling, only to find out that it used almost NONE of the Garand tooling and then they had to struggle to make the things, leading to the manufacturing and QC issues.
My SCAR 17S is built great, EXCEPT for the hinge on the stock. The stock actually fits & works very well, but the hinge will flex when pulling it tight to your shoulder. One more thing. WHY DO I GET A A2 PISTOL GRIP ON A GUN THAT COST SO MUCH!?
The reason the M14 had such a bad reputation was because Winchester bid about half the cost of what everyone knew the gun would cost to produce in order to gain the initial contract, and then tried to produce the gun as cheaply as possible to keep from losing too much money. The result was cheap crap that failed to function properly. Took a few years for the Army to get what they contracted for.
Great video dude!! Love my Socom. Threw it in a surplus walnut stock and swapped out to shitty “cqb” iron sights. Way more reliable than my AR10
great info! thanks!!
Most of the men who ACTUALLY used it in combat, PREFERED the M14 over the m16. That says all i need to know. M1A, Thanks.
IM A COMBAT VET. , THIS RIFLE SAVED MY ASS A THOUSAND TIMES IN NOM !!!! !!!! LOVE IT , GOT 2 M 1 A ' S !! 82nd. AIRBORNE ~ 1961 - 1964 MARK 1941 👍😊
@janemarkham4133 a term used to lightly today, but a civilian like me has no other words, But, Thank You for your incredible service Sir. 🇺🇲 ♥️
Most of the men who had problems with the M16 may have, but the ones who didn't have problems with the M16 in Vietnam, particularly once the Army fixed their own screwups (barrel chroming and propellant burn rate), don't tend to pine for the M14, particularly if they were used to having the extra ammo the M16 afforded them. The enemy certainly didn't like being shot at by the M16.
@anthonykaiser974 I've owned both an AR and an M1A. I don't have an AR anymore.
@@netravler1 I've carried M4 carbines where it matters across three different years. I own an AR and a FAL. I would gravitate to the AR for a SHTF situation. I own several Garands.
Hey buddy.... thanks for this video. Your honesty about your level of knowledge concerning the M-14 family of rifles is refreshing, but your actual level of general shooting knowledge shines. I was very surprised by your opinions about how the M-14 filled it's various rolls in the military, such as it not being a good sniper rifle and your brief history lesson on it was really enjoyable. I didn't know that it was supposed to BE A replacement for the BAR as well as an upgrade to the Garand Battle Rifle. (the 2 below paragraphs are not aimed at the OP, they're just my thoughts on the rifle and the 308 in particular, so aren't aimed at your video, Brother.) Thanks again for your work man, I just subscribed! See ya around!! I had always thought that it was just the next generation of Garand... A Garand with a stronger op-rod, a flash hider, and external 20 round box magazine. And in THAT sense, it is an excellent upgrade! Except for, in my humble opinion, they should have stuck with the OUT-FUCKING-STANDING .30-'06 round (NATO designation for .30-'06 is 7.62x63) and also IMHO, the .308 need never have been invented. Why invent a sub-par version of an already perfect round just to make it a tad shorter and less effective at longer ranges? Other than some negligible weight savings, you get nothing out of the deal. And, ya'll, I know the .308 is more inherently accurate. I am not denying that, but the trade offs aren't worth that tiny fraction of an MOA in accuracy you get for the loss in potency, range, and versatility. The '06 can field so many more weights of projectiles than the .308, that it's not a practical down-grade.
Nicely done!! I like your pizza box marksman videos 💪
@@Maker_of_the_home thank you so much!!
Springfield made are cast garbage........nobody talks about the BULA made...still inferior design to AR10 but BULA is better...they are military contractors.
@@chadhaire1711 nothing wrong with a cast receiver if it's made right. FN used cast receivers for the later generation FAL's and they're fine. Mini-14's have cast receivers as well and they have no receiver related issues to my knowledge (which is limited on mini-14's). I've heard of Bula but know very little about them.
@@blue_ridge_shooting762 Get on Bula web page....they make parts for military. and sold at Atlantic Firearms. And the problem is the cast receivers made by Springfield are NOT done right...and all their other parts are horrible. And you send back to get them fixed on warranty don't waste your time...they will come back just as messed up. I had bad M-1 rifles from them a far back as 1980's. They are not a real manufacturer---most parts are made somewhere else and they just slap them together, or the entire gun is made over seas. Only stuff they sell worth buying are the XD pistols as they are all made in Europe not SA. Their 1911's are usually okay. But nothing else I would touch. I know people who have put thousands into their M1A and still don't work.
Had mine (Springfield) for many many years and thousands of rounds thru it, not one issue.
@@blainecolbry3192 Wow thousands of rounds.....LOL.....even the junk Turkish shotguns can go that far Goober. Call us when it hits 20,000 rounds.....it won't.
Yeah, AR10 was easily the best 50's/60's battle rifle. Even the newer, modern "battle rifles" like LMT's or Sig's Spear or Knight's SR25 still retain many of those features. Hard to argue against BULA, especially with the current cost of Springfield M1A's. Pay a few hundred bucks more for a far better rifle, it's just hard to find them at times. Fulton's are nice, but 3500-4000? You could buy a modern boutique .308 like LMT's MARS-H for that, or a really nice "shooter" grade Garand and a pile of ammo... I guess those are for the really hardcore M14 fans, lol
Build quality of the M1A has gotten worse over the last 25 years mainly due to a decreasing number of USGI M14 parts used to assemble them, but they can be made to shoot reliably and accurately. The E2 variant of the M14 is the one folks should compare against other cold war battle rifles including the AR-10... the E2 is what inspired the EBR. Smith Enterprise is who custom built my 16.25", 18." and 22.0" modernized and accurized M14s, I have had them in all sorts of different stocks including a bull pup conversion and the Sage EBR... the very best chassis stock system that I have found for these rifles in the light weight Blackfeather RS - they all shoot MOA or better with Portuguese NATO surplus. Also, I didn't like any of the AR-10 rifles that I have owned, they were okay, but not good enough to replace any of my M14s. To learn more, search for: "The History and Development of the M14 EBR"
Springfield M1A are junk.....AR10 is superior in every way. If you are going to fall for the M1A get the BULA made that cost only a few bucks more. The fact you don't mention BULA makes me wonder if you even know much about this rifle.
@@chadhaire1711 You have some interesting opinions, thanks for sharing.
@THEH2OMAN he's about as interesting as squirrel turds. But he's certainly running around proving he's a douche.
I demand a fs2000 redo with red dot
@@ericramsey567 I can make that happen
As a specialist battle rifle and designated marksman rifle, the M14 served America well enough in a way that wasn't involving purchasing foreign weapons. It shined for U.S. Marines in Afghanistan taking out terrorists far away with a rifle that wasn't as prone to sand related malfunctions as the AR systems or arguably even the FAL. By the time of newer 7.62 NATO rifles like the SCAR-H were produced, I think the M14 was only then starting to show it's age for it's specialist roles. But early SCARs had some quality control problems as well, similarly to the M14. Elite special forces usually will take what they prefer after all. There very well could still be some out there using M14 variants to this day. They still probably have the best stock triggers of any battle rifle. I think the G3 gets some credit nowadays by the likes of of Ian Mccollum of Forgotten Weapons because of it's slightly greater ease of modularity compared to the likes of the M14 and FAL. The G3 with a better stock and accessorized handguards makes it almost as versatile as a modern AR-10. The HK PSG-1 after all is essentially just a highly accurized G3 and is considered one of the most accurate semi-auto sniper rifles in the world and especially for it's time. Pretty much only rivaled by the Walther WA2000 and accurized variants of the M14 and AR-10 in terms of semi-autos. The cool factor is so high for me on the M14 though. It's all American wood and steel. And they still work! Would love to have an M1A some day or some other modern production M14. Ruger Mini-14s are also damn cool.
M1A didn't jam from sand because they were not carried in the field but usually from roof tops or vehicles and not shot much. Totally inferior to a good AR10. AS far as Mini-14, hhahahahhahahahahahahhahaaha
@ Hey, I never said the Mini-14 is great, I just think it’s cool, lmao. I was also implying that AR-10s are superior. But soldiers will take what they can get and what they want, if they are lucky.
@@chadhaire1711 the biggest and only inherent flaw with the mini 14 is it’s terrible accuracy at 100+ meter ranges. That is if you don’t count the fact that ruger chooses to make non proprietary mags for their own profit. If you have issues with the mini other than accuracy I would bet a lot of money that you don’t use ruger mags which if you don’t it becomes an unreliable pos. I’ve had mine for years and put several thousand rounds through it only with the proper ruger 20rd mags and have never had one malfunction, only bad accuracy and a rear sight that unscrews itself every few hundred rounds. They are no ar15 but if you live in a ban state it’s the next best thing and will do the same exact performance at close distances
@@ethanp7183 You have never seen an Mini 14 in government service after a few years.......I have.....fall apart junk.
@@chadhaire1711 wasn’t talking about military service, I said if you live in a ban state.. I’m talking about people who want something for home defense in a POS anti gun state
Always crazy how much easier a simple red dot makes things.
You got that right. The irons had me second guessing my ability to even shoot at all
It has its role, has its job.its a very good rifleman’s rifle..I mean it’s a warhorse!
You said an M14 is not a sniper rifle and was not designed to be one./ I trained on an M14 in the Army, in 1964 and with iron sights, I was able to hit a quarter 3 times - 2 clean holes and an edge shot at 100 yards. The M14 was as you said, a product of its time. They were Cold War rifles built to compete with the AK47. The political feeling at the time was that we would be fighting Russians, in Europe, in fairly open terrain.So what happened? We became embroiled in a civil war in Vietnam, which was a tropical jungle environment, which of course has a tendency to warp wood stocks. Add to that, the Air Force wanted a lower caliber, light weight rifle to arm its air crews. The bean counters in the Pentagon felt all the armed forces should field the same weapons to simplify logistics. In my unit, we were all armed with AKs and SKSs. My particular AK looked very much like the one Osama Bin Laden was ofter photographed with- the short, stubby barrel. It was created by one of our unit armorers, and it served admirably. That said, within its design limitations, the M14 was hard to beat but NATO ammo standardization to the 5.56mm was the death notice of the M14. The M16 had a plastic warp-free stock, it was light weight, easier to shoot well, and the insividual soldier's ammo load was increased a lot. The trade off was the M14 had a better trigger, sights, and longer effective range. I liked the M1, the M14,and the AK. Even the Ppsh41 was better-in my view-than the M16.
Where the m14 wins.. trigger, sights, aesthetics
@@wingatebarraclough3553 can't argue there! It's a beauty
Yes it is.
A range toy shooting at paper
Fal, 9.5 pounds.. M14, 9.2 pounds.. ?
.. with optics on the way, and the gaping hole on the side... But they're not "bad".
AR-10 is just a much better rifle, whether for the military or civilian. Does the same job of the M-14 but does it far better.
How is is it to zero?
People say they suck because on full auto in nam they were almost uncontrollable. Other than that they are very accurate rifles and a joy to shoot.
Thank You, Good, sincere report. Too often people allow their opinions obliterate practicality. It was not truely the rifle as much as what we were forced to do with it. Korea was even more worthless than VN
I like how you say 'Wind-ham' lol
Good video. Totally agree. The M14 (Semi-Auto) and M1A are great rifles. And the M14 was a great replacement for the M1 Garand, but our main enemy at the time, the USSR, had already developed the AK-47, so the M14 was outdated before it even hit the drawing board.
And, interestingly, we could have gotten there earlier , with the m1 being initially proposed with the more "intermediate " 276 (can't recall) . But with our involvement in ww2 on the horizon, like the decision to go with 1861 springfield by the union, it was decided to just go with what the war department already had, the "known" 30/06
@@wingatebarraclough3553 276 Pedersen. MacArthur had to go with the logistics chain we had at that point. Unfortunate if you want to not have another cartridge to manage and push forward.
Thanks
The Nat. Match trigger is two stage and very crisp. Ok, I just watched you squeeze the trigger with that close-up. That is NOT a Nat. Match trigger. You'd know. It's nice.
the standard m14/m1a, and M1 triggers are all 2 stage triggers. the difference between a standard, and NM trigger, is a trigger job, thats it.
Grok: The "P" stamp on the front of the pistol grip of your M1A rifle is known as a proof mark. This mark indicates that the rifle, or specifically the stock in this case, has been subjected to a proof test. During this test, a special high-pressure cartridge is fired through the rifle to ensure that it can withstand the pressures of live ammunition without failing. This was a standard procedure for military rifles to verify their safety and functionality before being issued or reissued. The (Sans-Serif) "P" specifically stamped in the wrist of your Pistol Stock indicates a more modern manufactured stock (as compared to a Serifed "P")
Good call.
You can't proof test a stock, and because the wood stock is.one of the easiest parts to damage, is not a good place to proof mark a rifle. A lot of the A.I. programs just make stuff up sometimes.
@@TheSuburban15 Agreed. The mark may not signify that the stock was tested, but rather that it was the completed rifle was "proofed".
The assembled M14 passed inspection = P stamp
Definitely one of the harder guns for me to learn how to shoot well.
@@jasonweishaupt1828 yeah the sights while they are very good, they do have a learning curve to them in my opinion
@@blue_ridge_shooting762 I've never cared for the Nat'l Match, be it on the M1A or AR15. The regular aperture is fantastic though; definitely one of the best iron systems I've ever used.
I always thought comparing an m14 to the m16 (or other guns) was somewhat like arguing if a hammer or a screwdriver was a better tool. If you had a situation with a lot of open ground and you didn’t expect to travel long distances, I suspect the M14 would be considered a superior choice. If you were in a jungle situation….. I believe both are fine rifles.
The AR-10, which was sabotaged by the US Army during it's trials, was far superior to the M-14. It was controllable on full auto and still a light weight rifle. The M-14 was only selected because "Big Army" wanted a rifle that looked like the Garand, made with wood and steel.
@@My-Name-Isnt-Important It wasn't just that they wanted a product that looked like a Garand. They actually claimed they could make the M14 using M1 tooling to a great degree. They were mistaken.
I clicked on this video to see an m-14 being shot. For you to not be an expert on this subject,”which admittedly you’re not”, you still managed to waste 20 minutes of my time. Needless to say I will not make that mistake again.
@@darrallipke8070 I have a video of me shooting it. Thanks for watching
👎 Nope I’m done
Darrell just jealous that he doesn’t have one. 😊
Nothing in the title said he was going to shoot it.
They sell them in 6.5CM with an Archangel stock and a muzzle brake, national match trigger.... Add a decent bipod and a solid scope and it'll post pretty nice groups with good ammo. Decent price, too.
I, too, replaced the top hand guard with the perforated style, it just looks "cooler", as for the milled portion of the stock next to the receiver, I purchased and mounted a "faux" selector switch (it mounts to the stock, not the receiver) to fill that eye sore.
I shot an M1A in High Power competition (Springfield "loaded"), most local ranges where meets were conducted were 100 yds. I, and most other shooters incorporated a "6 o'clock" hold on the 6" diameter black target circle that would result in a center hit that was 3" above the bottom of the black circle, so the fact that the rear sight elevation was limited did not matter, that said, replacing the rear aperture with a standard-issue one is an easy fix that will allow the aperture to lower past the "8 clicks", 100 yard setting. At 200 yards, the black target circle was 12" in diameter and increased in size accordingly at 300 yds. (18")and 600 yards (36") so that the black circle always appeared the same size at every range, ie., it was as wide as the front sight post.
They say it suck’s because 1. It’s 100 year old technology and 2. They just don’t know how to shoot it. 3. Like this is my opinion the same goes for them. I Love the rifle. It’s awesome.
I agree with you about the unfair contempt heaped upon the M-14/M1A platform. When I was on active duty in the navy, the M-14 was our service rifle. Anything else we had on board was either a handgun, full blown machine gun, or"Bloop Tube." I really liked the M-14, namely because it had excellent accuracy, 100% reliable out of our various ones after thousands of rounds fired, and the sights were terrific. All of ours were clearly stamped back on the top of the receiver right before the buttstock began as made by Winchester. Also, about that whole sniper rifle knock, you should know that the standard sniper team in Vietnam would consist of the primary sniper equipped with a bolt action rifle (Winchester model 70 .30-06 early in the war) and a secondary man equipped with a hand-selected M-14 fitted with a custom stainless steel Douglas barrel. Of course, the M-14 isn't quite up to the accuracy level of the bolt action, but it could take care of precision long range shots when needed, and it did so often.
Probably because the modern M1A is so far removed from an M14 in build quality it isn’t even funny. Crappy cast parts and inconsistent QC. That and when the original rifle came out, it was already outclassed by other modern designs.
BULA made are not cast..do you even know who Bula is?
Shot m14 service rifle as a high master for the ma national guard team back in the 80s..we had a tool maker who built our rifles...and several could hold 1/2 minute...even the all guard shooters would send their armorers to get pointers from the guy....with my particular rifle at Perry the rifle fired a 100-8x record breaking string 300 yard rapid relay with 168 gr mex match ammo...these rifles shot like bolt rifles....
To All those who say its not an accurate Rifle, i say : GO LEARN TO SHOOT A RIFLE! I have 1 M1A and 1 M14 rifle and they're both Lethal
Do you realize that people regularly use the M14 and the M1 Garand to shoot 1000 yard competitions? Kind of hard to call them "not good" sniper rifles. They'll do as well as the shooter
@@MarkBerenger thanks for the input. The M14 as issued to the US service man could not have done this. The rifles used in CMP competitions and sniper matches are far removed from what would have been carried in rice patties. The rifle is capable of shooting to that distance but not with regular old M80 ball, nor without serious accuracizing work having been done to it. Thanks for watching!
the original Springfield made M-14's earned their reputations as reliable and accurate rifles. The new manufacture M-14's from the imitation Springfield are range toys that just look cool imo.
it's fun to have an opinion even if it's easily debunked by the competitions won with reproduction versions lol
LRB is the way to go
@@MarkBerenger Wrong Goober...you have no clue