Just a quick Navy story before I enjoy this vid. In the early '80's I was on the bridge of the USS Kalamazoo, AOR6, during general quarters drills in the N. Atlantic. Someone tossed a bright orange 55gal drum overboard and we cut circles around it at about 600 yards. Each member of the bridgewatch team got to fire 200 rds. of .50 cal from the port bridgewing mount. Well, a thousand rounds later the barrel bobbed along happily unhit by .50 bmg. A young man who had just become a Gunners Mate a couple of weeks before shouldered an M14 and fired three shots at it offhand. He then unloaded and safed his weapon and left the bridge. Yep, thirty seconds later the orange drum sank forever. It was the coolest thing ever.
That’s actually really cool that the M-14’s magazine can sorta function as both a detachable and internal, since you can just push a clip into it. I never even knew that.
As a Seabee this was our camp weapon... they were "a choice" when guarding the camp perimeter... saw a few with synthetic stocks and a 3 round burst function... (S, 3, A)... almost everyone would use the 14 as it was easier to clean and gave you more confidence then the toy like M.16...
I've always loved the performance of the M-14. I used a National Match version both as a member of the California Army National Guard State Rifle Team, and later on Combat Patrols as a SOT-A (Special Operations Team - Alpha) member in Afghanistan. The range and reliability of the M-14 is second to none, and certainly superior in many aspect to the M-4/M-16 series rifle. My 2 cents. SSG. U.S. Army (Medically Retired) Infantry / Sniper / SOF Intel (SOT-A), multiple tours
"This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me."
In 1968 I took my BCT at Ft. Bragg, NC We all had to qualify with the M-14, and as we were in the transition, we also qualified with the M-16A1. I qualified as Marksman in both. The M-14 was heavier more rugged, kicked a hell of a lot more, (sometimes a bruise in the arm), but we prefered it than the 16 which we called the Mattel rifle. Then in 1969 when deployed overseas, we were issued the M-16.
@@balthazarvanovermeire7271 I think you have the M14 confused with the M16, and even then it's hearsay.... The M14 is a robust, reliable and accurate firearm more so than the cheap Chinese Kalashnikov copies that were used in the Vietnam war...
Memories....I watched this and almost fell asleep from the monatone speaker just like when I saw this in the Corps. Some things never change. The M14 / M1a is still an excellent rifle, they just need better training films. Semper Fi
I've heard people claim this gun is "delicate", meaning its unreliable and easily broken. I'm somewhat skeptical...considering its based on Garand action, which has proven itself to be rugged and reliable.
This really brings back memories from when I was in the army in the late 60s. We only had to fire familiarization on the 14, as the 16 had replaced it as the standard infantry rifle. After having only fired the 16 prior to my first firing of the 14, I was unprepared for the amount of recoil the 14 would generate. My first firing of it was in a crouch position, where I nearly fell backward due to the recoil - very embarrassing on the firing line!
Period films like this are great. All the terminology is correct too. The cutaway animation is surprisingly good, and the oversized model is a nice touch also. Pretty sure the troops were using blanks, therefore we don't see full recoil (also the guy in the foreground on the move was a few feet in front of the guy behind him, which would be a safety no-no). Thanks for posting
Ohhh, I get it now. I agree to some degree (that rhymes! =D). For me the M14 is what happens when the Garand and BAR have a baby... so... yeah. Best rifle ever!
>> I've owned this weapon. It was the best rifle I've ever owned, AFTER you've trained with it! It's a massively powerful weapon that has to be man handled at full auto, and boy does it destroys whatever it hits.
When I took ROTC in high school back in the mid-60s, they showed us an M-14 training film where a soldier holds the rifle by the small of the stock up against his chin and pulls the trigger. Expected to see a lot of teeth flying around but he was OK.
Anything could replace the M2, it was very long making it poor for urban warfare, yet its low velocity (essentially a super long 9mm) made it poor in medium range engagements. The M3 was a nice close quarter SMG due to the 45ACP power and the small profile, but it had a very slow fire rate. For the needs at that time, the M14 was light enough, powerful enough, and high ROF to play the part of most small arms. Note that the purpose of SMG today is low penetration= low collateral damage.
Actually, the FAL is good in multiple situations do to its ability to fire full auto and semi auto in different situations; suppressing the enemy or killing them will a disciplined trigger finger.
The M14 and it's many variants (Mk.14 EBR, M21,M39 EMR) are still heavily used today in the US military, they were found to be far more effective at range than the Stoner rifles. The Stoner rifles only replaced the M1A/M14 as the standard infantry rifle, not all together.
@@gijoe5372 You mean you're spreading an "untruth". Please refer to soldiers' experience in Afghanistan and Iraq especially with regards for long distance firing.
@mgibbs88 Well I read that the experience of the American soldiers in WWII showed that the 30-06 was too long and abit too overpowered for a round of its own. Then they had the T20 test rifle and various test batches where 2 candiates were selected the T14 and the T15 from the T44 via the T25/T24 test rifles - the M14 was chosen and if one thinks about it its an M1 but with more clips and a same caliber round but abit shorter whilst still retaining characterisits of a traditional rifle :)
A gun is a gun, and bullets are bullets. The trade-off of ballistics and power is equal between these rounds, therefore both should be feared equally. It's much easier to engage multiple targets (lethally) and at a much longer range than an AK. Like I said it's a trade-off.. Both weapons in the hands of an expert are just as deadly as the other.
Not to start an argument, you are correct in saying that, 3 are taken off if your enemy cares about its soldiers, if they are prepared to die honorably on a battlefield, then most likely the enemy will not care for the wound and fight as their companions lay dying.
The switch from the 7.62 M14 to the 5.56 M16 was made by the U.S. forces because it was decided long ago that a high powered rifle wasn't needed for most field operations. The newer weapon and its ammo are lighter, cheaper, easier to carry, and more manageable in rapid fire situations. The 62gr 5.56 round has enough power to pierce a standard infantry helmet at 600m, and no less lethal than the 7.62 in anti-personnel ops.
I own the Springfield M1A.Good rifle but its weakness is the bolt roller.If it comes off then the rifle is done.I had mines come off 3 times and finally replaced with a new bolt with roller from Springfield Armory.I had one issued to me in Kuwait which was a Winchester M14 made in 1962 with an ART II scope from Anniston Arsenal in Alabama.The rifle worked so well with M118LR rounds and this was not an M21 either.It grouped a 1/4 inch at 100M and 5 1/4 at 400M.Great DM rifle.
reddevilparatrooper -That is great to hear. Our forces deserve the best we can get for them. I was cheering when the M14 came back during the war on terror (i own an M1A Scout). The DMR concept makes great sense. I really like the Burris 2.75x EER scope on the forward rail of my Scout. I have a Millett 1-4x DMR reticle scope i am going to try on something. After i bought it i heard that it was widely used in Afghanistan, at individual expense. That was a good endorsement. Thank u for your service. Very glad u returned safely.
The M-14 was a good gun but was very heavy. Its mechanism was different from that of the Armalites. Was it less needy of maintenance? I read about the AR-10 losing out to the M-14 in the competitive trials. The AR had advantages for sure. The M-14 was full auto but weren't the selector switches changed later on to avoid "spray and pray" from poor fire discipline? I like the idea of a bigger round but what if you can carry more cartridges and shoot a smaller round just as accurately?
The M16 has finally been pushed to it's technological limits in the form of the current M-16A4. Don't expect to see a newer version. This is it, until some completely new design comes along. Meanwhile, the M-14 inventory is still serving all branches of the armed forces. Granted, some have been refitted with aluminum stocks with pistol grips, sliding shoulder stocks, rail mounts, optics and bipods, while most are practically unchanged such as those found in shipboard armories and war reserve arsenals. All M-14 service rifles today, regardless of configuration, were of the 1.6 million manufactured and delivered by Springfield Armory between 1957 and 1965. Some of the guys carrying M14s in the high mountains of Afghanistan or aboard ships at sea are carrying weapons used by their grandfathers in wars and conflicts from the Dominican Republic to the Vietnam War. Expect them to be around while longer.
Brasstard 7.62 ~~ Good point, but I heard that the actual number of M-14s destroyed was under 200,000, and mainly in the form of rifle parts. About a quarter million were given as military aid to the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithonia, and Estonia, after the Russians pulled out of those countries with all of their small arms following the Soviet collapse. Those latter foreign aid M-14s were said to have been "purchased back" by the Bush administration soon after 9/11 to make up for the shortfall of small arms in a long range, hard hitting caliber needed in Afghanistan. The 750,000 number that you mentioned may include thousands of .45ACP M1A1 Thompson submachine guns and other perfectly good and serviceable weapons. Unfortunately, the Thompsons were dumped in the ocean with great media fanfare. Meanwhile, there seems to be plenty of M-14s in reserve arsenals, aboard ships in the Navy and Military Sealift Command, and in the field downrange. Commercial versions by Springfield Armory and Fulton Armory are said to meet or exceed mil-spec. No doubt they're tooled up for military contracts if and when the need arises.
Richard Najjar they are supposed to destroy more m14s and other weapons from Anniston AL in the 2017 national defense authorization act last I had heard. it's like Ukraine and others destroying Soviet era weapons years ago and now they need them.
During the Vietnam era and the sixties when this rifle was used by just about everyone like Marine Corps army et cetera cetera was a good rifle had good knock down power it wasn't until ladybird Johnson owned 51 or 52% of colt arms manufacturing That it was taken away is away from us and issued the M16 which was made by Colt how much money do you think ladybird made in her stock by the S the M14 also came with a nylon stop which made it a little bit later a lot of people don't tell you that
@wwood14 The difference actually is not in the propellant, the real change is actually an airspace. The extra half inch of the .30-06 was due to it originally being designed as the .30-03 round for the springfield 1903 rifle. The .30-03 used an outdated, less powerful propellant and was replaced by the .30-06. Since the machines already existed to produce .30-03, they just continued using the cases, with a half inch of space behind the bullet. The M14 round simply does away with the airspace
I simply would choose it over an M4 because the M14 is essentially an M1 Garand fussed with a Browning Automatic Rifle, and in my opinion, the M1 is the greatest battle rifle of all time. It's more accurate and has more punch, yet it still can be a decent full-auto weapon. The only problem is of, course, it's relatively low ammo capacity and it's size.
The M14 is a great battle rifle. It is accurate, hard hitting, reliable and can reach out to a great distance with more than adequate “take down” power. It is heavier than the more modern AR family of weapons used by the Army and the individual soldier can carry more ammo due to its lighter weight. Due to the power if the 7.62x51 round, the M14 is relatively uncontrollable when used on automatic fire, especially if one trues to fire from the shoulder. The video suggests that the M14 replaces the M1 Garand, the BAR, the M1 Carbine and the M3 Grease Gun. This was a lot of hype to get the M14 approved. A case could be made for it replacing both the M1 Garand and the BAR but no way in hell it would be a good substitute for a Carbine and an M3. These two weapons were not designed as battle rifles and had very different purposes. The carbine was intended to be more of a personal defense type weapon, primarily for use by support troops. The M14 use by support troops put them right back in the same situation the Carbine was meant to avoid. The M3 is a submachine gun. Largely employed by tank and armored crews who need to work within the close confines of their vehicles. It is interesting that these two weapons continued to be in widespread use long after the M14 was pretty much replaced by the M16 platform!
It is a real pity that the US Military was so deluded to think the M-14 could replace not just the M1 Garand Service Rifle, but also the BAR LMG, the M1 Carbine, and the M3 SMG. Just the freaking huge size of the Rifle’s gas operation system alone should have been a clue that the BEST that could have been hoped for was to have a base for a LMG, Service Rifle, and MAYBE a Carbine. But given the power of the 7.62x51NATO round, that "carbine," like the current M1A SOCOM, would have a freakishly powerful recoil, making it terribly difficult to control AS a Carbine. As for an LMG, it should have been highly suitable in that capacity with a slightly heavier barrel, and stock-assembly. The Squad Automatic version of the Rifle was a decent try at doing this, but purely a pistol-grip wasn’t really sufficient for a Squad Support Weapon, or LMG. That heavier barrel and stock was really needed, adding at least another 2 - 3 lbs to the Rifle to make it more controllable than the M-14 turned out to be in FA Fire. But getting to the SMG expectation... If the M-14 would have made for a nearly uncontrollable Carbine due to the increased recoil, and decreased weight of a Carbine M-14, then it should have been freakishly obvious that expecting it to replace the M3 Grease Gun was a fantasy to whomever conceived of it. The M2 Carbine provided a base for what could have been a perfectly acceptable SMG by shortening its barrel, and creating a sturdier Folding Stock (Maybe a Folding Stock that folds under and forward, locked on both sides of the rear stock). THAT would have allowed for a more streamlined Logistics Trail, while not expecting stupid things from the M-15 Platform. But ultimately, despite my love of the M1 Garand Platform, which includes the M-14, the development of the AR platform by Stoner meant that the M-14’s life as a Service Rifle was doomed. It is also a pity that the AR-3/AR-11 did not go into production, as they retain a more traditional rifle configuration. The .222 chambered AR-11 could have very easily been converted to 5.56NATO/.223. I wonder if I can find Blueprints for it. It would be an interesting project to try to make one. Using regular resin or Plastic Extruded 3D printing provides a means to test the operation of a Rifle by using just primer powered blanks (and a muzzle-constriction device to simulate a bullet being involved). But that would allow for tolerances to be tested, and for the configuration of things like magazine-fit and round-feeding, as well as the operation of the gas-system.
You suspected that only the Thompson machine guns was fully automatic? Nah... this was the absolute best updated version of all.. that includes the Thompson and many more beyond .... even the 8 shot garand
If the United States were invaded by any foreign nation and I was forced to move into an underground resistance movement, and I had a choice of one firearm to carry with me, it would be the M-14!
I realize that the versatile and easily maintained M-16 is about as much rifle, in terms of how many configurations are possible, as you can get for the money. Still, I grew up in the .30 calibre era and never could get my head around going to war with a .22. Old dogs and new tricks, I guess. I just plain loved the M-14.
![🔴 [TRỰC TIẾP] HCĐG LÀO CAI - U20 THÁI LAN | Cúp VTV9 - Bình Điền 2024| JET STUDIO](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nXSwoEuqsFM/mqdefault.jpg)
Just a quick Navy story before I enjoy this vid. In the early '80's I was on the bridge of the USS Kalamazoo, AOR6, during general quarters drills in the N. Atlantic. Someone tossed a bright orange 55gal drum overboard and we cut circles around it at about 600 yards. Each member of the bridgewatch team got to fire 200 rds. of .50 cal from the port bridgewing mount. Well, a thousand rounds later the barrel bobbed along happily unhit by .50 bmg. A young man who had just become a Gunners Mate a couple of weeks before shouldered an M14 and fired three shots at it offhand. He then unloaded and safed his weapon and left the bridge. Yep, thirty seconds later the orange drum sank forever. It was the coolest thing ever.
That’s actually really cool that the M-14’s magazine can sorta function as both a detachable and internal, since you can just push a clip into it. I never even knew that.
"...I don't want no teen-age queen, I just want my M-14."
RobertKaydoo Eskimo pussy is mighty cold.
aha .... your with Private Pyle with jelly donuts hooorraaahhhh !!!
This made my day
I would rather have m16 . M 14 was prety bad
@@reltihfloda7419 um what? lol
As a Seabee this was our camp weapon... they were "a choice" when guarding the camp perimeter... saw a few with synthetic stocks and a 3 round burst function... (S, 3, A)... almost everyone would use the 14 as it was easier to clean and gave you more confidence then the toy like M.16...
I've always loved the performance of the M-14. I used a National Match version both as a member of the California Army National Guard State Rifle Team, and later on Combat Patrols as a SOT-A (Special Operations Team - Alpha) member in Afghanistan. The range and reliability of the M-14 is second to none, and certainly superior in many aspect to the M-4/M-16 series rifle. My 2 cents.
SSG. U.S. Army (Medically Retired) Infantry / Sniper / SOF Intel (SOT-A), multiple tours
old but Gold. reliability wise, tested and proven in the field.
"The Carbon"
But thats how its pronounced in the US of the A
By the narrator
@@moon-5568 I was making a joke lmao
@@moon-5568 Nah its fine
"This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me."
Full metal jacket my guy
First dislike
@@crisdropemoff2605 it’s the rifle man creed
In 1968 I took my BCT at Ft. Bragg, NC
We all had to qualify with the M-14, and as
we were in the transition, we also qualified with the M-16A1.
I qualified as Marksman in both.
The M-14 was heavier more rugged, kicked a hell of a lot more, (sometimes a bruise in the arm), but we prefered it than the 16 which we called the Mattel rifle.
Then in 1969 when deployed overseas, we were issued the M-16.
Proud to say I'm one of the last Marines to actually use this weapon system.. Such a great tool :')
The M-14 KICKS ASS!!! I just LOVE the way that rifle looks too!
It look like the M1 garand but with a magazine and without the ping action
Untill you faced an AK in a jungle
@@balthazarvanovermeire7271 lol the m14 is better than the Kalashnikov in every way.....
@@gunfuego than why did the Americans use the ak's they found in Vietnam and did they not keep their m14
@@balthazarvanovermeire7271 I think you have the M14 confused with the M16, and even then it's hearsay.... The M14 is a robust, reliable and accurate firearm more so than the cheap Chinese Kalashnikov copies that were used in the Vietnam war...
I trained with the M-14 in basic. Then went I got to Vietnam, i was given the M-16 rifle, 1967-70.
@Thane Mac The M-16, because it is light...however, it did jam on me. The M-14 was too big, and I never did like that big magazine.
Ahh, a classic in the world of battle rifles.
Memories....I watched this and almost fell asleep from the monatone speaker just like when I saw this in the Corps. Some things never change. The M14 / M1a is still an excellent rifle, they just need better training films. Semper Fi
The FAL is superior.
And the ar15 runs circles around them both.
@@dogwater5499 Still, what about the G3?
@@BmorePatriot I don't know what made me comment this, I know shit all about guns.
@@dogwater5499 I bet. How is the FAL superior? Accuracy-wise?
These vintage videos are awesome
I've heard people claim this gun is "delicate", meaning its unreliable and easily broken. I'm somewhat skeptical...considering its based on Garand action, which has proven itself to be rugged and reliable.
I just finished building a 1/3 scale model of the M14 and got curious about it. Thanks for such an awesome, educational video!
This is prolly my fav military rifle. Looks cool, big rounds, simple.
By far my favorite rifle of all times, I want one.
ahh i love old military videos
This really brings back memories from when I was in the army in the late 60s. We only had to fire familiarization on the 14, as the 16 had replaced it as the standard infantry rifle. After having only fired the 16 prior to my first firing of the 14, I was unprepared for the amount of recoil the 14 would generate. My first firing of it was in a crouch position, where I nearly fell backward due to the recoil - very embarrassing on the firing line!
The best Battle Rifle ever made. Best combination of all Firepower,Accuracy,Dependability. A true combat vets favorite.
Pretty kewl, no tools needed. I used to do this blind folder.
Olds school is the best.
Yes
That is why they are phased out. So cool that they are less effective.
this video gave me more thorough training on the m14 than the marine corps ever gave me about the m16. ...in 2005
Your channel is the gift the keeps on giving.
Period films like this are great. All the terminology is correct too. The cutaway animation is surprisingly good, and the oversized model is a nice touch also. Pretty sure the troops were using blanks, therefore we don't see full recoil (also the guy in the foreground on the move was a few feet in front of the guy behind him, which would be a safety no-no). Thanks for posting
I like how the rifle shown at 4:19 has a high wood stock that covers most of the oprod, Dont see that anymore.
checkmate makes great 25 round magazines for the civilian version, m1a1 Springfields
I used this gun in 1979 during recruit training
Ohhh, I get it now. I agree to some degree (that rhymes! =D). For me the M14 is what happens when the Garand and BAR have a baby... so... yeah. Best rifle ever!
Just found your video...fantastic! A great service posting this presentation, and I thank you...
Thanks for uploading this! Never saw this one. A superb and beautiful rifle- saved my Dad's life from Da Nang to A Shau.
>> I've owned this weapon. It was the best rifle I've ever owned, AFTER you've trained with it! It's a massively powerful weapon that has to be man handled at full auto, and boy does it destroys whatever it hits.
When I took ROTC in high school back in the mid-60s, they showed us an M-14 training film where a soldier holds the rifle by the small of the stock up against his chin and pulls the trigger. Expected to see a lot of teeth flying around but he was OK.
@lookatthewholepictur probably swear and drink whiskey out of sheer joy over its creation
Who needs CGI when you have animation like this!
Anything could replace the M2, it was very long making it poor for urban warfare, yet its low velocity (essentially a super long 9mm) made it poor in medium range engagements. The M3 was a nice close quarter SMG due to the 45ACP power and the small profile, but it had a very slow fire rate. For the needs at that time, the M14 was light enough, powerful enough, and high ROF to play the part of most small arms.
Note that the purpose of SMG today is low penetration= low collateral damage.
Nice channel. Congratulations!
Finest rifle ever made.
Thank's for uploading this gem.
hell yea it does.the only real advantage the AR has is its ergonomics. pistol grips are a real must have for steady rifle shooting off hand
In Afghanistan many units of the 82nd Airborne were issued M14's.
The m14 is the sexiest weapon out their my favourite gun THX for the info
Great video on a great American weapon !!
Very cool video .. Thanks for sharing
The BAR fired full rifle rounds.
The way they hold it prone looks like a good way to pinch the fingers, I've done it with the Garand.
Actually, the FAL is good in multiple situations do to its ability to fire full auto and semi auto in different situations; suppressing the enemy or killing them will a disciplined trigger finger.
The M14 and it's many variants (Mk.14 EBR, M21,M39 EMR) are still heavily used today in the US military, they were found to be far more effective at range than the Stoner rifles. The Stoner rifles only replaced the M1A/M14 as the standard infantry rifle, not all together.
Ur spewing lies
@@gijoe5372 are you seriously replying to a 5 year old comment?
Yeah i am because it's the 1st comment I saw and I had to spread the truth
@@gijoe5372 You mean you're spreading an "untruth". Please refer to soldiers' experience in Afghanistan and Iraq especially with regards for long distance firing.
Actually the m110a1 has replaced the m14
It is remarkable that, even with a 22-inch barrel, accuracy was not dimished if compared to Garand's one
3:38 "Fluted" brass?? Hmmm...never seen that before 😎
@mgibbs88 Well I read that the experience of the American soldiers in WWII showed that the 30-06 was too long and abit too overpowered for a round of its own. Then they had the T20 test rifle and various test batches where 2 candiates were selected the T14 and the T15 from the T44 via the T25/T24 test rifles - the M14 was chosen and if one thinks about it its an M1 but with more clips and a same caliber round but abit shorter whilst still retaining characterisits of a traditional rifle :)
A gun is a gun, and bullets are bullets. The trade-off of ballistics and power is equal between these rounds, therefore both should be feared equally. It's much easier to engage multiple targets (lethally) and at a much longer range than an AK. Like I said it's a trade-off.. Both weapons in the hands of an expert are just as deadly as the other.
Just subscribed. LOVE this stuff. Thanks!
Brings me back. A+
I learned more from this video than I did from 2 years in the infantry...sad. But this video is awesome.
This was just what I was looking for, thanks.
I own one of these and it is a must have rifle.
That expanding brass was interesting. I was not aware that those were ever made.
Not to start an argument, you are correct in saying that, 3 are taken off if your enemy cares about its soldiers, if they are prepared to die honorably on a battlefield, then most likely the enemy will not care for the wound and fight as their companions lay dying.
@wwood14 same power in a smaller case. the M1's .30-06' round is 7.62x63mm. The M14's round is 7.62x51mm, half an inch shorter.
they should make the m14 the standard infantry gun, men need to be strong from carrying the weight and man u from its recoil
Best battle rifle the U.S. ever produced. It simply came around at the wrong period of time.
We used the M39 EMR which is an M14 gutted and then dropped into an aluminum chassis. They just recently destroyed the remaining ones.
I loved that rifle! So easy to fire.
The switch from the 7.62 M14 to the 5.56 M16 was made by the U.S. forces because it was decided long ago that a high powered rifle wasn't needed for most field operations. The newer weapon and its ammo are lighter, cheaper, easier to carry, and more manageable in rapid fire situations. The 62gr 5.56 round has enough power to pierce a standard infantry helmet at 600m, and no less lethal than the 7.62 in anti-personnel ops.
I own the Springfield M1A.Good rifle but its weakness is the bolt roller.If it comes off then the rifle is done.I had mines come off 3 times and finally replaced with a new bolt with roller from Springfield Armory.I had one issued to me in Kuwait which was a Winchester M14 made in 1962 with an ART II scope from Anniston Arsenal in Alabama.The rifle worked so well with M118LR rounds and this was not an M21 either.It grouped a 1/4 inch at 100M and 5 1/4 at 400M.Great DM rifle.
reddevilparatrooper -That is great to hear. Our forces deserve the best we can get for them. I was cheering when the M14 came back during the war on terror (i own an M1A Scout). The DMR concept makes great sense. I really like the Burris 2.75x EER scope on the forward rail of my Scout. I have a Millett 1-4x DMR reticle scope i am going to try on something. After i bought it i heard that it was widely used in Afghanistan, at individual expense. That was a good endorsement. Thank u for your service. Very glad u returned safely.
It’s basically the BAR 2.0, which no one really seems to mention
The M-14 was a good gun but was very heavy. Its mechanism was different from that of the Armalites. Was it less needy of maintenance? I read about the AR-10 losing out to the M-14 in the competitive trials. The AR had advantages for sure. The M-14 was full auto but weren't the selector switches changed later on to avoid "spray and pray" from poor fire discipline? I like the idea of a bigger round but what if you can carry more cartridges and shoot a smaller round just as accurately?
Wow! Great vid! I'd like to buy it if it's on DVD!
The M16 has finally been pushed to it's technological limits in the form of the current M-16A4. Don't expect to see a newer version. This is it, until some completely new design comes along.
Meanwhile, the M-14 inventory is still serving all branches of the armed forces. Granted, some have been refitted with aluminum stocks with pistol grips, sliding shoulder stocks, rail mounts, optics and bipods, while most are practically unchanged such as those found in shipboard armories and war reserve arsenals.
All M-14 service rifles today, regardless of configuration, were of the 1.6 million manufactured and delivered by Springfield Armory between 1957 and 1965. Some of the guys carrying M14s in the high mountains of Afghanistan or aboard ships at sea are carrying weapons used by their grandfathers in wars and conflicts from the Dominican Republic to the Vietnam War. Expect them to be around while longer.
Richard Najjar unfortunately 750,000 of them destroyed in 1990s by clinton
Brasstard 7.62 ~~ Good point, but I heard that the actual number of M-14s destroyed was under 200,000, and mainly in the form of rifle parts. About a quarter million were given as military aid to the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithonia, and Estonia, after the Russians pulled out of those countries with all of their small arms following the Soviet collapse. Those latter foreign aid M-14s were said to have been "purchased back" by the Bush administration soon after 9/11 to make up for the shortfall of small arms in a long range, hard hitting caliber needed in Afghanistan. The 750,000 number that you mentioned may include thousands of .45ACP M1A1 Thompson submachine guns and other perfectly good and serviceable weapons. Unfortunately, the Thompsons were dumped in the ocean with great media fanfare.
Meanwhile, there seems to be plenty of M-14s in reserve arsenals, aboard ships in the Navy and Military Sealift Command, and in the field downrange. Commercial versions by Springfield Armory and Fulton Armory are said to meet or exceed mil-spec. No doubt they're tooled up for military contracts if and when the need arises.
Richard Najjar they are supposed to destroy more m14s and other weapons from Anniston AL in the 2017 national defense authorization act last I had heard. it's like Ukraine and others destroying Soviet era weapons years ago and now they need them.
It has farm from reached it's limit, on the contrary. It's just getting started
They are still using the m14 because they're still around or else they stop producing em because their shit rifle for combat
During the Vietnam era and the sixties when this rifle was used by just about everyone like Marine Corps army et cetera cetera was a good rifle had good knock down power it wasn't until ladybird Johnson owned 51 or 52% of colt arms manufacturing That it was taken away is away from us and issued the M16 which was made by Colt how much money do you think ladybird made in her stock by the S the M14 also came with a nylon stop which made it a little bit later a lot of people don't tell you that
@wwood14 The difference actually is not in the propellant, the real change is actually an airspace. The extra half inch of the .30-06 was due to it originally being designed as the .30-03 round for the springfield 1903 rifle. The .30-03 used an outdated, less powerful propellant and was replaced by the .30-06. Since the machines already existed to produce .30-03, they just continued using the cases, with a half inch of space behind the bullet. The M14 round simply does away with the airspace
@esh325 The STG44's 7.92x33mm round? How many countries adopted this round? Was it ONE?
where do you get all of this footage???
2:08 well that aged like milk
yeah for the lighter full auto M-14 but a semi automatic M-1 garand handles it fine as does the very heavy Browning Automatic Rifle
I simply would choose it over an M4 because the M14 is essentially an M1 Garand fussed with a Browning Automatic Rifle, and in my opinion, the M1 is the greatest battle rifle of all time. It's more accurate and has more punch, yet it still can be a decent full-auto weapon. The only problem is of, course, it's relatively low ammo capacity and it's size.
The M14 is a great battle rifle. It is accurate, hard hitting, reliable and can reach out to a great distance with more than adequate “take down” power. It is heavier than the more modern AR family of weapons used by the Army and the individual soldier can carry more ammo due to its lighter weight. Due to the power if the 7.62x51 round, the M14 is relatively uncontrollable when used on automatic fire, especially if one trues to fire from the shoulder. The video suggests that the M14 replaces the M1 Garand, the BAR, the M1 Carbine and the M3 Grease Gun. This was a lot of hype to get the M14 approved. A case could be made for it replacing both the M1 Garand and the BAR but no way in hell it would be a good substitute for a Carbine and an M3. These two weapons were not designed as battle rifles and had very different purposes. The carbine was intended to be more of a personal defense type weapon, primarily for use by support troops. The M14 use by support troops put them right back in the same situation the Carbine was meant to avoid. The M3 is a submachine gun. Largely employed by tank and armored crews who need to work within the close confines of their vehicles. It is interesting that these two weapons continued to be in widespread use long after the M14 was pretty much replaced by the M16 platform!
Having all that power I just cant help but feel a little safer just sayin!
Ya it’s cool and all but does it ping when it’s fired the last shot in the clip? I don’t thing so. I will be sticking with the m1
It is a real pity that the US Military was so deluded to think the M-14 could replace not just the M1 Garand Service Rifle, but also the BAR LMG, the M1 Carbine, and the M3 SMG.
Just the freaking huge size of the Rifle’s gas operation system alone should have been a clue that the BEST that could have been hoped for was to have a base for a LMG, Service Rifle, and MAYBE a Carbine.
But given the power of the 7.62x51NATO round, that "carbine," like the current M1A SOCOM, would have a freakishly powerful recoil, making it terribly difficult to control AS a Carbine.
As for an LMG, it should have been highly suitable in that capacity with a slightly heavier barrel, and stock-assembly. The Squad Automatic version of the Rifle was a decent try at doing this, but purely a pistol-grip wasn’t really sufficient for a Squad Support Weapon, or LMG. That heavier barrel and stock was really needed, adding at least another 2 - 3 lbs to the Rifle to make it more controllable than the M-14 turned out to be in FA Fire.
But getting to the SMG expectation... If the M-14 would have made for a nearly uncontrollable Carbine due to the increased recoil, and decreased weight of a Carbine M-14, then it should have been freakishly obvious that expecting it to replace the M3 Grease Gun was a fantasy to whomever conceived of it. The M2 Carbine provided a base for what could have been a perfectly acceptable SMG by shortening its barrel, and creating a sturdier Folding Stock (Maybe a Folding Stock that folds under and forward, locked on both sides of the rear stock).
THAT would have allowed for a more streamlined Logistics Trail, while not expecting stupid things from the M-15 Platform.
But ultimately, despite my love of the M1 Garand Platform, which includes the M-14, the development of the AR platform by Stoner meant that the M-14’s life as a Service Rifle was doomed.
It is also a pity that the AR-3/AR-11 did not go into production, as they retain a more traditional rifle configuration. The .222 chambered AR-11 could have very easily been converted to 5.56NATO/.223.
I wonder if I can find Blueprints for it. It would be an interesting project to try to make one. Using regular resin or Plastic Extruded 3D printing provides a means to test the operation of a Rifle by using just primer powered blanks (and a muzzle-constriction device to simulate a bullet being involved). But that would allow for tolerances to be tested, and for the configuration of things like magazine-fit and round-feeding, as well as the operation of the gas-system.
Legendary gun, and my favorite with the Abakan AN 94
i love this gun to death
if the m14 saw ww2, Jesus, we would of rocked
in the '60s, I had a toy one, made by Marx
Oof
never knew it was fully automatic. Cool
You suspected that only the Thompson machine guns was fully automatic? Nah... this was the absolute best updated version of all.. that includes the Thompson and many more beyond .... even the 8 shot garand
CLASSIC!!
The ping ping is my favorite
I bought a brand new M1A Scout for $1400, but looking back, maybe I should have gotten the full length M1A. I dunno. :(
I like these historical documents.
technically no, it'd be the first battle rifle because of the size of the cartridge, the first real military assault rifle would be the m16
If the United States were invaded by any foreign nation and I was forced to move into an underground resistance movement, and I had a choice of one firearm to carry with me, it would be the M-14!
What's more heavy a 23 pound m60 a 16 pound browning automatic or a 10 pound m14
"Rip - my arm 1944 / 1969"
Springs are amazing
best rifle ever made.... the first choice of the expert and the novice alike.
I realize that the versatile and easily maintained M-16 is about as much rifle, in terms of how many configurations are possible, as you can get for the money. Still, I grew up in the .30 calibre era and never could get my head around going to war with a .22. Old dogs and new tricks, I guess. I just plain loved the M-14.
The beggining is just such epic win.
heyyy, your pfp is pretty good