Sig Romeo5 Compact Red Dot Sight amzn.to/2KLPDy8
Sig Bravo3 Sight amzn.to/2LpZ46S
AXIL Earmuffs Tactical amzn.to/2PIrFJV
Foam Rifle and Pistol Rest amzn.to/2mIjHSr
Efect Military Tool amzn.to/3mgFxHm
Armorer's Manual amzn.to/2G5FRm2
SAS Amazon Store: www.amazon.com/shop/smallarms...
Patreon Page: / smallarmssolutions
Donate To SAS: donorbox.org/donate-to-small-...
Centurion Discount Codes:
Other/Misc: Code SAS10 for 10% off
Rifles: Code SASRIFLE for 3% off
Uppers/Lowers: SASUPPLWR for 5% off
G96 - Code SAS10 - 10% off
bit.ly/2INZpgi
Manta Products - Code BAR20 - 20% off
bit.ly/2IIzLK9
Challenge Targets - Code SAS - 10% off steel targets
www.challengetargets.com/SFNT...
Facebook - bit.ly/2INZa4S
Website - smallarmssolutions.com
Instagram - SmallArmsSolutions
PO Box 298, Cypress, TX 77410
I am just an old 11B grunt, not an expert on firearms. I spent the winter of 1967-68 in the 2nd Inf Div on the Korean DMZ pulling guard in a foxhole every night. Our bunker/trenches were maybe 20-30 meters from the fence. For some reason the army put sapling fences in front of our positions and barbed wire everywhere else. The sapling fence provided nice cover for North Koreans to fire on our positions. We had semi-automatic M-14s. A few of the M-14 automatics with a bi-pod. Our basic load was five 20 round magazines and a couple of frags. We stuffed our mags in the pockets of the flak jacket. I was in a couple of firefights on the DMZ. I think they did not give us more ordnance because we would have shot up the fence. :-) Not liking the cold weather and freezing every night, I 1049ed to Vietnam and spent the rest of 1968 there. I was assigned to the 1st Cav and was issued a new M-16. Basic and infantry AIT was all M-14. The M16 I got was the first time I had touched one. We went to the range to zero our weapon. Then sat down and figured out how to field strip and clean them and I was on my way to I Corps. Our basic load was something like twenty 20 round magazines plus more rounds in clips, lots of frags, and a claymore. I was really shocked at how little ammo we had on the Korean DMZ! My impression? The M-14 was very heavy. Luckily I did not have to do patrols on the DMZ in Korea, so it did not matter much. When I picked up the M-16 I smiled because it was so light. Of course the ammo was light too. I was asst M-60 gunner, so I had to carry belts of ammo for the M-60 as well. So we carried a lot of weight on patrols. The M-16 was automatic which we used most of the time firing short bursts. Most firefights were close range in dense foliage. Recon by fire was common. The M-16 was great. I kept it clean to avoid jams. We put the plastic silverware wrapper from C-rations over the muzzle. I love the AR-15 platform because of the modular design and being easily modified. Today I am amazed at the knowledge of our troops about weapons. Even though we had M-16s in Vietnam, I look back on that experience and think about how primitive the conditions were. I think we were closer to fighting with spears and clubs. I wonder if people see Vietnam videos and think that we went back to barracks, showers and mess halls at the end of the day. We slept on the ground every day of my tour. Our "rear"was guarding some LZ in a bunker for a few days "rest", but still pulling ambushes and LPs. That's all I got! Thanks.
Wow, thanks for that amazing insight! Glad you made it back!
My father was in Korea as well patrolling the 38th. He was there in 67-68 as well. His name is Joe Soto.
Great story!
@Sandra Kirkwold On my tour in nam , Apr 65 to Dec. 66 I never took a shower, we washed up in a helmet or a ammo can, and we did not dine in a mess hall , we sat on the edge of a dirt ditch fighting the bugs off from the mess kit while trying to eat. Our so called barracks were a GP tent with drit floor which at times turned to mud. at night when you did get some sleep (4 to 3 hours) the rats would run over you and at times give you a little nip to let you know they had been there ,the insects would bits on your eyelids and in the morning the pus from the bits would harden and seal the lids shut, I went a 2nd. time Mar. 68 to July 69 during this tour my section was made up of 6 to 9 marine (some times) when I got out of Nam in 69 I had one dead and five shot and blasted to hell! We have saying in the Marine "If you haven't walked the walk...then shut the hell up" oh ya one more thing I am a retired Msgt. USMC
Thanks for serving sir
Just a thought for all those who post "I knew/was a vietnam vet that hated to lose my M14 to a M16". What you train with is what you prefer. Read some books- troops who had trapdoor springfields hated the Krag rifle originally, till they had experience with it. Troops with 1903 springfields didnt want to trade in their trusty target rifles for fancy new M1s at first. Troops complain, always.
It’s a soldier’s god given right to bitch.
Yet the m9 was NEVER fully adopted.... Sometimes, new isn't better.
You got a source on this? I'd love to look into this, because it's not surprising at all. We just haven't heard about it recently because we've used the same platform for over 50 years
@@sandrobruni7575 goto the vets home.... Ask the Vietnam vets.... I suppose, you could goto the library and look at those things called books too.
When are we gonna break for chow?
I was trained on the M14 50 years ago in Army Basic. I hated it. It was heavy, always dirty and hard to clean. Of course I used the M16 in VN (25th Inf). I'm 71 now and own a M1A. I love it because I don't crawl in the mud any more and only carry it from my car to the shooting bench.
There are so many guns like that. I love ‘em, but thank God I don’t have to actually fight with them.
How many battes have fought in vietnam with your m16 sir?
J Mark Eastwood ABOUT YOUR M1A: I like your comment. I’m generally in the same boat with you. I did my Army Basic on the North Fort side of Fort Lewis, WA in 1967 - M14 in hand. Prior to Basic I’d had a chance to become a little familiar with the M1 Garand. And that’s another story for another time so I’ll flash forward to the present except to say I didn’t mind the weight and size of the M14 in Basic because of my experience with the M1 and my 30.06 deer rifle, a Winchester Model 70. (I’ve still got the Mod 70. Last time I went hunting it went with me. Love it!) Today I’m now seriously considering buying the M1A, for like you say, to “carry it only from my car to the shooting bench.” You are the first M1A owner I’ve had a chance to ask these questions. There’s four parts: 1. What model of the M1A do you have? 2. What do you like about your M1A? 3. What do you not like about your M1A? 43. Would you recommend to your best buddy they buy the M1A? Thanks for your reply. I’m looking forward to what your have to say. Best regards,
@kevin pierson I own both :)
@kevin pierson I have money to waste ;)
I was with First Recon in Chu Lai and used the M 14 until January of 1967 when we were given the M 16. On my first patrol with the M 16 it jammed, I presume because of the ball powder being used early on. I went back to using my old M 14 until I returned to the states in July. I had no problems with the M 14. It was heavier and had more recoil but was always reliable.
I know the feeling. The first issued M-16 had a lot of problems. The M-14 never jammed.
Yea, nither dose a SKS, or AK-47 , the actual reason for the "problem" with the M-16 , was the end user's doctrine of a different weapon system, is the most polight way to word it.
@@williamd3141 the m14. Fails when dropped in the mud the m16 doesn’t the problem was the ammo.
@@spearfisherman308 There have been a lot of issues, from the early designs, to the doctrine and the fact that it was simply rushed in to service. Which, honestly isn't anything new. Pretty normal when you introduce a new weapon system during war time. Particularly if it's not really based on anything that's already in use.
My father was in Vietnam on the beaches of Bien Hoa during the Tet Offensive in 68. He was discharged in fall of 69, I was born in 71. Yrs later I asked him about the war when I was 15. He pulled out five massive slide carousels and reels and reels of 8mm film of the pictures and movies he made there. One picture is this young 21 yr old punk (him) outside his sand bunker opening up a wood crate and grabbing his brand new M-16. He said he absolutely loved that rifle and it was superior to the M-14 in every way. He also said he felt he was the luckiest man alive to come home from that terrible war. Then again yrs later I purchased an AR15 when I was 21. I remember showing to my father and almost cried when he tore it apart on the kitchen table like he had done it a thousand times. LOL. He put it back together loved the improvements that had been made went out and shot it off his back deck and said that was enough of that. My father says to this day he does not understand why the comments section on Yahoo News, when an article comes up about the M4 so many people comment on how the current military should go back to the M-14. He just shakes his head. Love you Dad.
meditech bUt ThE m4 HaS nO sToPpInG pOwEr!!! -M14 loving idiots
Your dad sounds awesome.
@JonMac. He is totally awesome. Was scared to death of him as kid to to him having a bit of a heavy hand. But as I grew up he became my best friend. Here is another cool story. My wife was a 4th grade teacher and was writing lesson plans to explain to the kids Veterans Day. My father could still wear his uniform from Nam so took all those films and slides to her school and did a presentation for her class wearing full dress (he is and E5). She came home that day from class and said they had to move him to the gym because the whole school wanted to see it.
@ EdHe is quite guarded with them so I doubt it. He had them all converted to digital and DVD and the photo company offered him money for rights to copies and he turned them down. I'll ask him though.
@@Meditech509 Thank you for sharing that with us. I'm subscribing to your channel just in case he let's you share the videos/pics with us.
Thank you for making this video. I've never been a fan of the M14 as a service rifle. It's a fun civilian rifle, but as a military rifle it was outdated the day it was adopted. It was a huge mistake adopting it and, as you mention, put us way behind our allies and our enemies. So many people refuse to accept this reality. Given your stature in the community, I hope folks listen to what you say here as it's absolutely true.
Military Arms Channel thanks Tim! I figured I would get a lot of flack on this. That is why I did not want to do it. There are horrible truths here that cost lives and put NATO forces behind the Warsaw Pact countries. The story of the the M14 weapon trial would repeat itself one more time with the M16. I despise the M14 and all the backhandedness that was involved with its adoption. Crime against the American and NATO forces.
MAC, if you are thankful for this video/channel, could you PLEASE send some of your viewers over? I desperately want this channel to succeed and thrive.
Florida Man MAC has been great to us! He got us on Full30 and helped spread the news we were on Full30 and announced we are back on KZhead. He is also a Patreon supporter! Can’t ask for more. Thanks Tim!
@@SmallArmsSolutions I now remember you telling me that a while back. I shouldn't have expected any less. Unfortunately I don't have the time and money right now to support either of you the way I'd like to. Thank you and +MAC for the great content, it's truly appreciated.
BTW, I didn't mean to come off rude with my original comment @Mac. Just excited to see you here Tim.
'69, 11B4P, 173rd Airborne Brigade 👍😎👍Loved my M16 throughout my tour in RVN. Hardly used the auto mode, the M60 handled that! We just carried the 7.62 belts 🙂 My only complaint about the M16 was that it didn't protect me from Agent Orange! I'm 74yrs old, with 100% VA service connected disability heart disease connected to that chemical . Life goes on!
that sucks, pal. thanks for your service, anyway.
So sorry to hear about your health condition. My uncle served in the Marines in Vietnam and has suffered from agent orange exposure. He has said you guys got a terrible response from the public when returning home, but I just wanted to say this millennial appreciates your service and is glad you made it home.
Hope your doing well brother. WELCOME HOME.
@@DMF716 76 and still kicking.... but now I'm down to those 3 footers 🏄♀️ 👍 Mahalos and Aloha, my Friend....
I was issued my M14 rifle in March 1962. It was brand new marked Springfield Armory, I qualified Expert with it. Needless to say, it did the job.
I love the M14 as an Infantry man in Afghanistan, I carried one in scout platoon with an optic for the role of precise fires. I used the rifle for as a somewhat precision rifle that could acquire multiple targets, it was amazing in that support role in scout squad. I am however glad I didn't have to carry it as a main battle rifle in a jungle, it was a good weapon in the wrong philosophy of use.
I didn't carry the EBR but damn if this video didn't validate my own insight into the m14. Like you, several scouts and marksman teams had great things to say about the rifle. I would like to agree but the trigger on the EBR was far from great and after 2 mags, it started affecting accuracy. Weight was also a problem and made firing in different positions problematic. Big Army obviously saw this and started mass implantation of the m110 but back in 05-06, was practically non-existent and the EBR was the only thing available. The chassis was expensive, so when crane switched to different materials to cut cost, problems started happening. The Army heavily suffers from accuracy problems and if the M14 was the rifle of choice, I doubt units would be combat ready in the numbers we take for granted now.
@@surq0784 its a shame the sr-25/m110 are so expensive compared to the m14, because its such a remarkable rifle and the design improved on the m14 by so much, but for 5k per rifle, its just waaaay too much(i could see like 3k for a rifle of that quality, but the rarity of them makes the price just too much)
@@Opachki69420 I don't know the actual property book value for the rifles but you're invalidating the fact that the m110 is sold as a kit and as a designated precision rifle. The Army also required that the rifle needed to have a guaranteed minimum accuracy assurance and doing that requires additional costs because every single rifle that gets delivered has to have that certification from Knight's. MK-14s and M21s, were literally, rifles pulled from the racks and upgraded with a chassis to become EBRs. Those rifles weren't expected to shoot any better than they already capable of, hence the "battle rifle" designation and not sniper/marksman rifle, like the MK-12.
@@surq0784 i didnt ignore any of that, i dont think it costs 5k in labor/material cost to achieve that tbh(to clarify, the military has a tendency to overbudget on things like this, so its safe to assume the rifle is about 10-15% cheaper than they pay for it, at least)
@@Opachki69420 It's the opposite actually, the Army awards contracts to the lowest bidder. The m110 was to the Army what the F-22 was to the Air Force and the Army needed a modern sniper rifle to replace the m24. Sniper teams were severely at a disadvantage in urban warfare and something needed to get implemented quickly and the Army had money to burn at the time. Unfortunately, none of this makes sense with the CSASS awarded to HK. Personally, I don't think there's a need for such a rifle and paying a premium because it's German, is further absurd.
Many of us in the UK have always been rather miffed that the .280 British was rejected; I often wonder with the passing of time just how much R&D there would have been in the cartridge since its 1947 introduction. We can only dream what Eugene Stoner could have done with the .280 and the AR10 at the time.
I've got one for you: what if we not only adopted .280 British for the rifle, but added a lengthened case variant (say 50mm case length) for belt-fed MGs like the MAG?
@@RaderizDorret I imagine the bean counters and logistic guys wouldn't like the idea as they believe, "one size fits all" which the rest of all know is BS!
@@RaderizDorretcheck out the 6.5 Grendel. The Americans basically reinvented the .280 Brit. Heh
@@RaderizDorretI believe they intended to use the .280 for everything, full MG and rifle.
6.5 grendel and 6.8 are great upgrades for the ar15....the 280 would have been great. I wish I had a roller delayed 280 carbine with 12.5 in barrel
My uncle Larry served in Vietnam early(ish), around 65 or so. He said he loved th M14 because it's what he was trained with & initially issued. He said he was then issued the early M16 & hated it, because it was "unreliable" & "not accurate". I don't think he ever realized the issues he experienced were due to the early non-chromed parts & incorrect ammo. My father served 1970-71 & loved the M16. Another Vietnam vet who taught me guitar served around 1969 and also loved the M16.
Yeah it makes no sense when people try to compare a modern ar15 to an old m14 it’s baffling how they think the m14 is still relevant
“I don’t think you guys want to be here for two hours”. Actually, yes, yes I do want to listen to your in depth analysis for two hours....
The title should be "Why I Despise Bureaucrats...". Well-made informative content. Thank you!
Yep!
Right on! I have a 1964 Guns Magazine that reviews the "New" civilian AR-15 from Colt. It talks about the testing the M-16 is going through with the military in Vietnam. We all have heard the stories of how the tests were rigged in favor of the M-14 and all I can say is that God for General LeMay from the Air Force, of all people for pushing for the 5.56 round in the M-16 platform. The bureaucrats screwed up the into of the M-16 but in the end the problems were solved and the basic rifleman ended up with a weapon that would keep him alive.
or "We shoulda went with the FAL like Winnie Churchill said" lol
In addition to the bureaucracy, though, there is also an egotistical general that wielded too much power in his single-handed ability to shove the .308 down NATO's throat, and the M14 down the throat of the bulk of the US military
And really badly so. There is nothing here that has anything to do with the weapon itself, but just blaming an inanimate object for the failures of the US Army Ordinance board. The rifle provided what they demanded, but their demand was stupid. Might just as well say computers suck because Bill Gates is a crooked a$$hole!
When i was much younger and the glocks were getting really popular i was one of the many people saying I don't want no plastic pistol. I was against it. Not only was it plastic but it didn't have a hammer. One day a friend of mine had one and let me shoot it. After I shot it I took it apart to see how it worked and how it was made. I realized how simple the striker fired system was and now all my pistols are striker fired plastic.
Technology if the future, its always going forward.
I realize this is a year old. But I’ll comment anyway. Think about the impact the 1911 had on pistols. Then along comes the Glock doing the same thing. Everybody is making polymer, striker pistols now. I was the same, a plastic gun?
I used to be all about steel & wood, hammers on pistols, but an old dog can learn new tricks, & am better off for it.
Funny thing is, a lot of AR10s are now getting into units in the role of DMR (Designated Marksman Rifle). We're finding that the penetrating power of the 7.62 is welcome in units when they DO need some accurate long range firepower or the stopping power needed at checkpoints and gates for stopping vehicles (through engine blocks and windshields). The 5.56 is still doing fine, but the USA isn't done with the 7.62 as a rifle cartridge yet.
Preferably with an ar10 or G3 though
Tradition kept my butt alive, the M 14 never failed, it could blow through Vegetation with little deflect. Maybe not perfect but my preference at the time. 67 and 68
Your 2 cents is worth a dollar sir, you was boots on ground.
That was my experience. I did basic with an M-14, then transitioned to M-16 before deploying to Vietnam. I carried the M-14 whenever I could find one. (Full disclosure: My life never depended on either one.)
I mean granted from an operator level I empathize with the way you feel sir. For me though given the type of warfare we were coming up to I wouldn't want m14 over my current M4A1 in most cases.
I mean I feel bad because you couldn't experience the rcarbine I have now because it's probably much better then the m16 you had back then because of all this backroom politics.
Would you have preferred an FAL? I heard the Rhodesian troops loved them.
Great video. "Despise" is a strong word, but I think you should have applied it more to the military acquisition process and not the rifle. I carried an M14 in Vietnam and loved it. However, I was assigned to a US Navy Special Boat Unit. As such, two of the major drawbacks of the M14 were eliminated. 1) The weight of the rifle and 2) the weight of the ammo. When not in use, my M14 was in a rack on the boat sitting next to cans of ammo. When compared to the M16, The larger , heavier round of the M14 was better able to better "punch" through jungle vegetation and light weight barriers, like wooden boats or make shift "bunkers". I can never remember using the M14 in "full auto" mode when engaging the enemy, for the obvious reasons you have outlined in your video. Many times, such engagements were at "stand-off" ranges of 200 yards or more. Of course, we had 2 M60 machine mounted on our boat. The M60s were very effective at these ranges also, but many times. all that was required to suppress the enemy was a few well placed shots from the M14. Now, if given a choice between the M14 or the FN-FAL......No contest! The FN-FAL would be the choice. However, I didn't have that option. The bottom line? My M14 served me well for more than 3 years and never let me down. I should point out, that prior to joining the Navy, I was an avid deer hunter and my cartridge of choice was the .308. Again, I great video. Thanks!
Belive me, the FN FAL is NOT a better rifle than the M-14. And despite what people may try to tell you the FN is also NOT as accurate as the M-14.
Hear, hear! As a young Marine, I loved my M14 and wasn't the least bit happy when they took it from me and handed me an M16. I wasn't alone. Despising the M14 over the shenanigans of its proponents is a classic case of misplaced anger. It ain't the rifle's fault!
IMHO firing ANY hand held weapon at fully auto is ONLY for suppressive fire, so it doesn't really need to stay on target when you are shooting at an "AREA" and not an individual target. The M14 has selective fire! select single and watch what that round will do compared to a 5.56. It may be true that while trudging through jungle mountains, you may want a smaller , lighter weapon. For accuracy at range and power on target, I will take the M14 over the M4 any day. You can indeed carry more 5.56 ammo, that is good, because you will need more rounds to get the job done.
I agree. As a member of my carrier's Personal Leadership Program (which was a program that augmented the Marine detachment with sailors so the former could get some liberty when we went into port), my in-port general quarters station was in the foretop with an M-14 and two bandoleers of ammunition (there were actually three of us up there: one other armed sailor, a sound-powered talker and myself). The foretop was a steel grate about 6 feet by 6 feet that was welded to the mast just beneath the air/surface search and fire control radars (thankfully, those systems were de-energized when in port). From that vantage point, we could direct accurate fire on any small craft within a thousand yards of the ship. It was a heavy weapon, so I can understand the complaints of those who had to lug it around a steaming, triple-canopy jungle or on long marches, but it was incredibly accurate which was still in use as the primary ship-board defense weapon in the fleet well into the 2000s and perhaps might still be found there today. One other thing that made the M-14 preferable to the M-16 for ship=board defense: the M-14's 7.62 mm round would cut right through a steel bulkhead and take out whomever was on the other side (hopefully, the bad guys), whereas the M-16's 5.56 mm round ran the risk of bouncing off the bulkhead and ricocheting around in the compartment, taking out your own people and quite possible yourself.
Thanks to all the men who carried a battle rifle.
I was trained on the M14 in 1964 at Fort Knox. I believed all the hype the army put out in the training films and thought it was a great weapon. But my young brain noted some discrepancies. For some reason the army tried to convince me that the M14 was light. Now I'm a big guy but that was not a light weapon. Secondly, the constantly talked about select fire and full auto. The only time I saw M14's with select fire were in training films. When we asked why there weren't any select fire M14s available to the troops we were told that we would waste ammo(?) Now I was a pretty good shot with the M14 and was amazed when I hit targets at 400 yards with open sights. But I wondered how that would apply to jungle warfare. Also in my hands the rifle was a good club and bayonet base. But I still wondered why it had to be so big. I thought the M1 carbine would make a much better jungle weapon. But I was told the M1 carbine was obsolete and lacked hitting power. I guess the army knew better. But honestly I could carry two carbines and ammo just as easily as 1 M14. But they knew better. But what really bothered me was that the M14 would overheat after three mags and would often double feed. But being a good soldier I obeyed orders. They also told us that the new M16 was junk. I thought it looked cool, was easier to deploy and more ammo could be carried. It also had that selector lever for full auto. But the M14 was effective at 1000 yards they said. Oh well. I was scheduled to go to VietNam in 1968 but due to a twist of fate I never saw combat and ended up training troops on the 105 Howitzer at Ft Sill. I have often wondered why the M14 had such a short service life. Although I see that it is sometimes used to this day by special forces. Maybe someone will get a 700 yard (klics) klll in Afghanistan. But your video confirms my suspicions especially due to tradition and my observation regarding discrepancies has been confirmed.
Modern Military use of the M14 is not because of how fantastic the rifle is. In the Iraq and Afghanistan wars a rifle with greater effective firing range was needed in some circumstances. So stead of having to go through the process of selecting and purchasing a new rifle chambered in a full sized round. They found it would be faster and cheaper to pull M14s from storage, then refurbish and accurize them. In a nutshell the Army needed a .308, not the M14.
The m1 carbine had a hard time penetrating even goat skin coats in Korea. The m14 weighs 10.7 pounds loaded. maximum effective range 875yd The m16 weighs 7.76 pounds loaded . maximum effective range 600yd 5.56x45 avg ft lbs = 1311 7.62x51 avg ft lbs = 2475 The big advantage is the power of the 7.62 NATO round. I have trained with an m14. Length was the only issue I ever had with it. 3 extra pounds never bothered me. I personally made several 1000 yd shots. Optics were used on those long range shots.
James Leahy The Springfield T44, later adopted as the M14 (An M1 Garand with 20 round box magazines, full auto switch and a White pattern shortened gas system) was a nice rifle for civilian shooters and marksmen. The process of turning the T44 into the M14 is despicable. The bureocracy ruined a rifle.
ned flanders Can you show me any evidence about the inferior penetration of the .30 carbine?
@@kayraaa2646 I have a fun to shoot m1 carbine. It is a great rifle. Just don't use it against Chinese and North Korean soldiers wearing heavy winter gear, and don't expect it to do well against even the lightest body armor (.30 carbine is essentially a pistol round) . The Goatskin coat comment was a story passed from my Uncle who fought in Korea. He Told me That if the enemy was more than 50 yds away, shooting would be a waste of ammo. He said he could see the impacting rounds and little or no effect on the target. I have my own range and have done a lot penetration tests with things like books, concrete blocks, and water. If you were to take an M1 carbine out and test it against almost any other military rifle you would see the evidence quick enough. The rifle was originally designed for a more powerful than 1911 .45 pistols replacement for rear echelon guards. So it does it's job well. It does have more than that pistol. Some states don't even allow deer hunting with it, because of lack of muzzle energy. below is some found stats.... The .30 Carbine was developed from the .32 Winchester Self-Loading used in an early semi-auto sporting rifle. A standard .30 Carbine ball bullet weighs 110 grains (7.1 g); a complete loaded round weighs 195 grains (12.6 g) and has a muzzle velocity of 1,990 ft/s (610 m/s), giving it 967 ft⋅lbf (1,311 joules) of energy when fired from the M1 carbine's 18-inch barrel. By comparison, the .30-06 M2 cartridge for M1 Garand rifle fired a ball bullet weighing 152 grains (9.8 g) at a muzzle velocity of 2,805 ft/s (855 m/s) and 2,655 ft⋅lbf (3,600 joules) of muzzle energy. Therefore, the M1 carbine is significantly less powerful than the M1 Garand. Another comparison is a .357 Magnum cartridge fired from an 18" rifle barrel, which has a muzzle velocity range from about 1,718-2,092 ft/s (524-638 m/s) with energies at 720-1,215 ft⋅lbf (976-1,647 J) for a 110 gr (7.1 g) bullet at the low end and a 125 gr (8.1 g) bullet on the high end.[11] As a hunting arm, the M1 carbine is approximately the equivalent to a .357 Magnum lever-action rifle. .30 Carbine sporting ammunition is factory recommended for hunting and control of large vermin like fox, javelina, and coyote. However, the game laws of several states do not allow hunting big game (deer, bear, or boar) with the .30 Carbine either by name or by minimum muzzle energy required.
Very interesting information, I served in the Australian army, we were issued with the FAL known as the SLR (self-loading Rifle) but I had a Harrington and Richards M14 for my own private hunting use back in the early 80tys. The SLR we were issued was semi-automatic only and is heavier than the M14. I found that 3 Rnd bursts with the M14 were very controllable and accurate I was extremely surprised by that. The SLR kicks like a mule in comparison, the M14 for me was very mild. I only weigh 130 pounds, the SLR 10lb 15oz with 20 rd mag. Our troops used the semi-auto SLR in Vietnam and loved the fact that when you hit someone they stayed hit add to that if they were hiding behind a tree no worries straight through one dead noggie. Australian term for enemy Vietnamese but the general derogatory term for Asian combatants. The M14 was shipped to Australia with no selector switch and spot welded so as not to be fully auto, a bit of elbow grease a grinder and Bobs your uncle M14 Assault rifle. I was using Australian surplus military ammunition it was all match grade stuff but standard issue in our forces.
Fnqbloke: Thanks for writing and relating your experiences. It is interesting to hear an Australian view of the M-14, especially since the SLR was standard issue for ANZAC forces during the Vietnam era. In the Osprey Military title by Bob Cashner, "FN FAL Battle Rifle," the author relates the now-famous Battle of Long Tan, during which besieged Australian forces prevailed against overwhelming numbers of NVA and VC irregulars, and the SLR was mentioned in after-action accounts as being the best weapon used in the action. Must have been dicey to have been given only a few mags for use in the field, a policy which was later changed, is my understanding. 20-rd. mags are heavy, no question, but it can't be any fun trying to reload mags in a down-pour while under enemy fire, either. There's a movie about the battle, which I'd like to see one of these days. Long-overdue tribute to our fine Aussie friends and allies. Far as the M14/M1A goes, they're very good rifles.I happen to disagree with the proprietor (Small Arms Solutions)on that score. Moreover, I know half a dozen combat veterans of Vietnam, American soldiers or Marines who carried M14s in battle in SE Asia, and to a man, they speak very highly of the weapon. Take your pick going into battle, if you are that young hard-charger headed towards the sound of the guns - you won't go wrong with either the FAL/SLR or the M14.
Is that far north Queensland bloke?
And now we can barely own nerf guns 🥲
I daresay they had equally derogatory nomenclature for your lot.
I had a H+R made M-14 in RVN, '66-'67, never failed me, in 1970 I did a 3 month stint at H+R's Rochdale, Mass. factory, working on M-16 parts. I would venture a guess that H+R, has been out of business for about 30 or so years.
I was a U.S. Marine who served in Vietnam from mid 1965 thru December 1966. Though I originally trained on the M1 Garland, I carried the M-14 my whole time while in Vietnam except for special operations. It saved my life and caused MANY casualties to the VC and NVA enemy. I loved my M-14. My children are glad I carried the M-14 because they are alive too.
I saw a guy on the Military Channel refer to the M-14 in full auto mode as having the 1st shot on the mark, the second shot a little high and anything after that was anti aircraft fire referring to the rate of climb.
Actually, a little high meant just short of aiming for high altitude bombers, the third was toward the high altitude bombers and geosynch satellites. It wasn't only climb, it had mass enough to stay sort of down, but it bounced all over the damned place. So, when I needed MG fire, I had the 249 or 240 guy suppress them, the DMR M14/M1a firer suppressed them via punching a nice hole in the SOB's. The USMC is getting rid of their M249's in favor of the M27 rifle, which is both an automatic rifle and DMR in a tad heavier 5.56 round.
Ya I also watched the military channel not the best info good on basics but this channel is way more detailed.
Yes the M14 to a lazy ass that won't practice with it is very difficult to shoot in falato. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. As a matter of fact with a little bit of practice almost anybody who weighs more than about 160 lb can shoot them relatively accurately in full auto.
True, very true, semi-auto is the way to get accurate shots on target.
I could never fire the M-14 in full auto from the shoulder without the muzzle climbing to the heavens. In a sling carry, with the left hand on top of the heat shield, you could hold it relatively parallel to the ground without the muzzle rising more than an inch or two, but it was then a grazing fire weapon. Of course, my primary arm was a mark 48 torpedo, so needing to shoot an M-14 was an indication that we were in deep shit on the boat.
Imagine a Garand in the late 30s with a detachable magazine chambered in quasi intermediate 276 pederson. Would’ve been light years beyond what anyone else had.
Sincerely, I tried. Just couldn’t imagine it? (really I didn’t want to google 276 Pederson)
If not for logistic restraints, we might have adopted either the Pedersen rifle or the M1 in .276 Pedersen, which was the originally intended cartridge for the M1. When they had to re chamber for .30-06, the capacity was reduced from 10 to 8.
What about a Garand in 6.5×55 Swede, pretty much what Garand originally wanted
hell even a mini 14 type of design
@@sandrobruni7575 "Logistic restraints" more like MacArthur being a fuckin penny pincher and complaining that it would be logistically hard to completely replace all the 30-06 with 276 Pederson
I wanna say that you have posted the most heart felt honest post I have ever seen. I'm a retired SGM over 23yrs in the Army 16 with Special Operations. I loved the post when people talk so passionately about our soldiers gives me hope! Thank you!
I don't agree that the M-14 sucks, but I think this was a very in-depth, complete, intelligent, and pretty straight forward video. Well done!
I fired an M-14 just once, on a range at Ft. Knox.when I was a tank crewman. I had also once shot an M-1 back in the days of huge cloth targets and the "pit" where you took turns hoisting up those targets and then spotting for the shooters. An M-14 was, near as I could tell, just an M-1 with a box magazine. Ho-hum. In Germany I was given an M-3 submchine gun (the infamous "grease gun") because that was a weapon you could keep inside a tank. I was less than thrilled; the effective range of the M-3 was six inches longer if you pulled out the wire stock. In Vietnam - and now an OCS grad assigned to the artilery. I had an M-16, an M-79 grenade launcher, and a .45 pistol. I looked pretty bad-ass but mostly I carried all that (and a radio) in hopes that at least one would work.
On the Second of July, 1967, Alpha and Bravo companies of the First Battalion, Ninth Marines were on patrol just a few hundred meters south of the D.M.Z. Bravo blundered into a well set ambush at the marketplace; soon, Alpha, too, was in the thick of it. The enemy consisted of a regiment of the North Vietnamese Army supported by artillery, heavy mortars, rockets, anti-aircraft guns, and surface-to-air missiles. Charlie and Delta Companies were rushed to the field in support, but the outcome had been decided. The Marines were overwhelmingly outnumbered. But, worse than that, they were equipped with Colt M-16 rifles. Their M-14 rifles, which had proven so effective and reliable, were stored in warehouses somewhere in the rear. The M-16s would fire once or twice -- maybe more -- then jam. The extractor would rip the rim off the casing. Then the only way to clear the chamber and resume firing was to lock open the bolt, run a cleaning rod down the barrel, and knock the casing loose. Soon, it would jam again. This was the rifle supplied to her troops by the richest nation on earth. The enemy was not so encumbered. They carried rifles which were designed in the Soviet Union and manufactured in one of the poorest nations on earth -- the so-called People’s Republic of China. Their rifles fired. Fired every time. They ran amongst the Marines, firing at will. Sixty-four men in Bravo were killed that afternoon. Altogether, the Battalion lost around a hundred of the Nation’s finest men. The next morning, we bagged them like groceries. We consigned their bodies to their families and commended their souls to God. May He be as merciful as they were courageous. Today, people are still debating the issue: Was it the fault of the ammo? The fault of the rifle? Neither. It was the fault of the politicians and contractors and generals. People in high places knew the rifles and ammo wouldn’t work together. The military didn’t want to buy the rifle when Armalite was manufacturing it. But when Colt was licensed as the manufacturer, they suddenly discovered it was a marvelous example of Yankee ingenuity. Sgt. Brown told them it was garbage. Col. Hackworth told them it was garbage. And every real Grunt knew it was garbage. It was unsuited for combat. There was no congressional investigation. No contractor was ever fined for supplying defective materiel. No one uncovered the bribes paid to government officials. No one went to jail. And the mothers of dead Marines were never told that their sons went into combat unarmed. To all outward appearances, those Marines died of gunshot and fragmentation wounds. But a closer examination reveals that they were first stabbed in the back by their countrymen. The politicians, contractors, and generals have retired to comfortable estates now. Their ranks have been filled by their clones -- greedy invertebrates every one. They should hope that God is more forgiving than I. Brave men should never be commanded by cowards. First Lieutenant Harvey G. Wysong 0100308 United States Marine Corps Reserve First Battalion, Ninth Marines “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” --Thos. Jefferson
Thank you. The 1/9 Marines are legend, and that clustermuck was just wrong. I'm thankful and happy you are still here. That story needs to be told. Stay strong.
Amen brother-- corruption at the top gets brave patriots killed. All the Hype surrounding the M14 was just dreamed up back then as ass covering propaganda, and people are still "parroting" it today.
Harvey Wysong Did you catch the part in the video where he explained the Army deliberately sabotaged the M16 because they wanted it to fail and were butthurt about being forced to field it?
The infamous "ball powder fiasco" in a rifle designed for use with "IMR powder"....politicians saved a whole two cents/round. It was also devoid of the "forward assist" and "port selection" on the gas tube. Politicians and the rich cause wars.
Agreed my good sir my father said the same thing. 2 tours in nam as a lrrp and he wouldn't take or touch a m16 neither would his men.
I trained with the M-14 at PI then used the rifle in Vietnam. Great weapon always reliable never jammed! I still shoot the the Springfield M-14 today and wouldn’t trade it for anything!
I see what you did there "John Stewart"
Grandpa had one in Vietnam when he was a combat engineer said he loved it.
I carried an M14 in an EBR Chassis with a fixed 10x Leupold for a few months during my second tour in Iraq with 1/502 IN. 101st Airborne, in and around the Mahmudiyah area during 2005 and 2006. I had shot an M1 Garand in high school for NRA Highpower and had grown an affinity for the M14, so I jumped at the chance to carry one. Huge mistake. In the chassis with the scope, a PEQ, a Surefire, and the Harris bipod we were issued it was BRUTAL to hump. The thing weighed more than a SAW with the paratrooper kit on it (short barrel, collapsible stock, ELCAN). It certainly was nothing special accuracy wise. I mistakenly figured that this rifle would be at least close to the M1 I shot in competition. Man was I wrong. We were issued M118, but these rifles could not reliably hit a man sized target past about 800 meters. It was an all-around fail. On a side note, a couple years after I got out I was at a large gunshow in Denver walking around, looking for ways to burn money. I overheard a conversation between two folks that went something like "You know that our boys aren't even using the M4 anymore overseas? That's right, they're all getting issued M14s! Those mouse guns just aren't putting down the tangos. They need 7.62." I had a good laugh. As I have come to expect, this was an outstanding video.
decodeddiesel thank you for your service!
Thank you for your service, and sharing your story - I've never heard much about the EBR in service. Has it since been phased out? If so, when? Can't even find that out.
What did you have that could reliably hit a man size target past 800?
Justin Mishler artillary
Regular small arms wise😉
This reminds me of Marine Raiders being issued "updated" 1911's (Picatinny rail etc.) in 2012 and immediately after that, complaints soared (by the people who were actually using them). In the end, the Raiders got issued Glock 19's.
Exactly, the FN .45 T (even the HK45 I think mk2) outclasses any/ all 1911's in all aspects categories. I try to explain this to people that act like 1911's are the end all be all .45 within the tactical realm to include basic sport shooting/ self defense if you're going to spend 1k on a hand gun. $1k 1911's are when you start getting to better quality (not saying anything less expensive is junk). 1911's at that price point really don't hold a candle to FNs and HKs double stack hammer guns.
@@jaredbellard2777 Love the Browning Hi-Power w/ double stack 9mm 15 rd mag.
The reactionary nature of the US Army Ordnance Corps is legendary. They were famous for disregarding emerging technologies as far back as the US civil war.
That stems from the Army doctrine "No unnecessary expenditure of ammunition" as it cost the ordnance dept. money. That's why magazine fed guns weren't adopted for such a long time and when they were they were required to have a magazine cut off. In fact the Spencer carbine and rifles were all sent back to the factory during and after the civil war to have the Stabler Cut off installed on their magazine tubes. Krags and 03's had cutoffs, Thompsons were eventually adopted so no drum could be installed. And if you think about it, all the decades the army enforced its no unnecessary expenditure of ammo policy was all for naught. In vietnam it's estimated that for every enemy killed 50,000 rounds had been expended.
I loved my M14 so much that I went out and bought a rebuilt one @30 yrs ago.
I’ve managed to save up almost $5K, and the very next Springfield M1A that I see for sale will be coming home with me, along with as much .308 ammo as I’m able to carry. I LOVE the M14 platform, and I can’t wait to get one myself so that I can park it right beside my AR15 in my safe whenever I’m not out shooting either one of them!
Militaries have long been attempting to replace every weapon in their arsenal with one do-it-all magic stick. It never works. The gear must adapt to the mission. Where the m14 fell flat in close quarters jungle or urban fighting it excels in long range mountainous areas (afghanistan).
Exactly.
I second the fact. I fired the M14 at NTC, Orlando in JRTC in 79, but qualified with the M16A1 at PI in 1980. In the battle of Khe Sahn, the Marines of India. Co, 26 Marines had the M14.
The M1 was also originally supposed to be chambered in .276 Pederson. A cartridge with very similar ballistics as .280 British however right before it entered production they forced John Garand to rechamber the M1 for 30-06.
I read somewhere that that was McArthur. He noticed that there were 500 million rounds of .30 left over from ww1 and he said, like hell we are going to waste those and go to a new cartridge.
@@basilmcdonnell9807 When you delve into MacArthur, it becomes very obvious very quickly he was a narcissistic moron. But the US Military has a long history of these odd decisions. The reason why the 1:7 twist was adopted by the US was because they had a crap ton of 70-odd grain tracers left over.
It made sense at the time to stick with the 30-06. The country was in the middle of the depression and army budgets were cut to the bone. The army had a stockpile of 30-06 ammo, the Browning machinegun, and the BAR, as well as the 03 Springfield all, used 30-06. This made less of a supply problem.
@@rustyshackleford17 MacArthur was definitely a narcissistic moron. Patton was probably a narcissist but he was definitely not a moron. If we had let Patton loose we would have gotten to Berlin before the Russians.
@@ryanwinkelman1781 like when they let Patton loose before and his vehicles ran out of fuel? An armored battle without gas and BB's isn't a battle, it's getting your forces slaughtered.
Excellent Vid, well thought out reasoned argument. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of damage one incompetent can do. "Strudel or Studeler the Ordinance Noodle"
I was issued the M-14 in 68. My problem with it during basic training was the weight, I only weighed 140 pounds plus my hat size was 6 7/8 and the spaghetti strap in my brain bucket couldn't be cinched down enough to keep it in place. The rifle weighed in at 11.5 pounds plus all the ammo. I was a shootest before I ever went into the Army but the recoil would knock my helmet over my eyes after about 3 rounds. We got to fire them on full auto, crap, you couldn't stay close to the target. I was one of only 8 to qualify Expert on record range so I didn't hate the rifle but I had been shooting from the age of 4 and I was 20 at the time. The only people in my basic company that got to use the M-16 were those that got their orders as 11B AIT. I found the 14 a good range rifle but wouldn't ever want to have it in a jungle. When I was issued the M-79 it was a relief to get rid of that slug.
I must have grown up in another universe. My M-14,in Basic and in Vietnam was not only accurate and hard hitting, but it was great for a vertical butt-stroke and handled a bayonet extremely well. Based on this video, you all will want to throw your M-14’s away, I would be happy to have them.
The training using the butt stroke was a lot of fun, but just how many times have you done that on a real enemy!
The average M14 is vastly more accurate than the FAL,G3,or Galil.The M14 is easier to mount a scope on than the other main battle rifles.
Do explain how a heavier gun is more accurate in a combat situation? Even if it is technically more accurate at long range.
I also have a hard time modernizing!
Because you arent supposed to use it as a machine gun (although some had the option which is stupid). Theres a reason why they started bringing them back in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its a great DMR, and that includes being "more accurate at long range" edit: but theyre many other options that are better for now days, it is outdated.
Excellent video. I get very angry every time I hear the story about how the Army sabotaged the introduction of the M-16 so it would fail… A lot of soldiers died needlessly because of that. My question is this, was anyone ever held to account for that? I would think some people should’ve gone to jail.
I, too, trained on the M14, but was issued an XM16E1 in RVN. We cursed it as a constantly jamming, hard to clean (recoil lugs collected layers of solid carbon) and fairly fragile. It was many years before I learned that the main problem was the 5.56mm ammo that had been loaded with the wrong propellant (a money-saving move, since the proper gunpowder was more expensive). Now, fifty years later, my initial critique of the 5.56mm round (its anemic .22-caliber slug), was correct. The Army recently adopted an entirely different weapon system which fires a 6.8mm bullet from a bi-metal case which is practically the same length as the 7.62mm NATO.
soldiers died needlessly because they were sent to a war to fight peasants that 98% supported the Communists because unlike everyone else, the Communists supported land reform.
@charlessouza6475 Anemic isn't fragmenting and causing severely traumatic wounds 200 yards and in with ball ammo and effective wounds beyond that, lol. The Army wanted a wonder weapon that'd help them win long-range skirmishes in Afghanistan and penetrate armor effectively. Of course, the armor penetration hopes were disappointed, but they did create a highly capable modern battle rifle system with companion machine gun. There's no way that they'll get rid of the assault rifle, though. The future is in fielding either or both at once depending on operational demands. Noticing a lot of long engagements? More Sigs. More medium-close engagements? More M4's and M16's. No need to drop the 5.56 until we re-learn the lessons of WW2 (again, counting early Vietnam).
@@charlessouza6475 Question: if .22 is so anemic, would you be willing to be shot with it? If the answer is "no", then kindly discard your Fuddlore opinion. Dealing with people like you for decades has gotten old.
I trained on the M-14 in boot camp in the USMC in 1968. I carried an M-16 in VN (during the awful years when the ammo supplied was totally unsuited to the M-16). I agree with the comments made regarding the M-14 vs the M-16 controversy and how our troops were let down by the Ordnance Corps. However...I have to say a couple things about the M-14. If taken outside of the military context and considered solely on its own merits, the M-14 is not an awful weapon. It's sturdy (once you replace the wooden stock with a composite stock...had my first wooden stock 14 break on me because of dry rot.) It's accurate to a good distance. It's easy to maintain and provides a very good punch. If I were in the wilderness or hunting, I see nothing wrong with the 14. But as he said...the military had a better option available and in a combat environment they should have gone with the intermediate round. In VN the line troops really didn't need a rifle that could fire out to 1000 yards. I wouldn't turn down an M-14...but I wouldn't choose it for a combat role.
The M-14 was a very good rifle, just like any weapon if you kept it clean it functioned properly. 7.62 was a hard hitting round that we used in Viet Nam in 1965 and 66. Never had any trouble with the weight ( at the time I was 6ft. 190lbs ) it worked fine in the bush or in open field, the Marine Corps used what was available and the M-14 was it until they came up with the .22 caliper rifle. Seems to be a lot of crying about weight. I can't remember Charlie sniveling about the weight of his AK 47. He used what was given to him although we did see a few of them with M-16's acquired from the US Army, never fired and only dropped once.
I was a volunteer in the (old) South African Army. We were issued 7.62 NATO FN FALs and the receivers were all pinned so that the selector's full auto position was blocked. The author is absolutely correct about the difficulty of controlling a 7.62 MBR on full auto. Even 7.62 general purpose machine-guns are (somewhat) difficult to accurately control if fired from the shoulder, though their (roughly) 25 pound weight makes it much easier than a (roughly) ten pound Main Battle Rifle on full auto. I own a semi-auto FAL and have owned a semi-auto M14 variant. I believe the M14 is a fine rifle, but still give the nod to the FAL. It's all about the correct tool for a given situation.
Like I say during an MG Shoot I got to shoot a full auto G3 (308 battle rifle) and it was useless... I could barely keep it on point, and engaging multiple unfriendlies was impossible. It was a fun waste of ammunition but realistically completely unpractical. I also shot an MG34 which was a blast, but without that three point heavy tripod it was essentially the same issue.
I carried an M14 on my 3rd Iraq deployment and I loved it more than my M4. It was a beast! But to each is own. Great video as always.
In the middle east didn't america start fielding more marksman because the ranges are further so we need more high powered rifles.
I guess your M14 does have a scope.
Lee Harvey Oswald ha the m14 is an awesome riflemans rifle. You just can’t see past your prideful biases which are evident on this videos comments.
@@leroysellers5398 given some of us have actually served in our recent wars, perhaps the poser Oswald wannabe should speak about the video games he played, rather than real world things. Even money, Lee boy would think that a butt stroke is something to be enjoyed receiving.
@@Kirtahl ehhh.... I think Afghanistan has more open fields. But in my opinion 5.56 is still better 0 to 300yards.
my uncle and 25 other marines was KIA during the hill fights in Vietnam 1967 over half had a jammed weapon....it's messed up that the government knew that it would malfunction.
Great analysis. I really enjoyed this video and just as good is reading through the first hand accounts in the comments section. Really phenomenal stuff. Love reading the experiences of older vets.
When you put all of those problems that have been treated individually into one lump, it makes a really sad story.
Very educational on many levels. Thank you for your research and insight.
The British Royal Marines and Gurkhas also used the AR-15 in combat in the jungles in Indonesia in 1964-65 and liked it. These were a COTS purchase directly from Colt.
Friend of mine was in the South African Defence Force in the 1970s up on the border with Angola and actually in Angola. He carried what we know here as the R1 rifle which is actually the FAL. He told me that the terrorist insurgents they fought used to try to take cover behind trees sometimes when other cover was sparse in the usual savannah landscape. The R1 would happily shoot right through the tree and kill them. They never seemed to learn the lesson.
Back in the day, I was issued an M-14 during basic training. First time I went to "order arms," my synthetic rifle stock and that of many of my fellow soldiers, cracked. We were then issued wooden stocks. On the rifle range, my M-14 jammed once or twice with every two or three magazines, despite my cleaning my weapon meticulously every day. On the plus side, I shot "expert" and had no trouble knocking down silhouette targets at 400 meters with the M-14.
Probably the worn out magazines.
The army didn't adopt the henry repeating rifle for similar reasons in the Civil War.
guy l Yeah the attitude of “no we can’t have this new technology we need marksmanship only” has been in the US military leadership for a long time. The same thing has been said about bolt actions, semi autos, etc.
Custer was taught a costly lesson in 1876 when he went up against Henry repeaters versus his single shot Springfield’s.
Travis Tucker I would like to agree with that sentiment. the Henry, as well as it was an improvement where it gave much higher rates of fire, was a very flawed system that could only handle cartridges that were somewhat underpowered. the action just was not strong enough, and was one of the main reasons why other lever action rifles of different design eclipsed it in the end. though one thing to remember, is that even if the round is underpowered, the sheer volume of fire from a Henry is almost always going to win you a fight against something like a trapdoor Springfield.
To be fair, the logistics capabilities of the U.S. Army after the civil war was limited, particularly for a limited standing frontier army.
The Spencer was way more field reliable and wasn't prone to jamming like the Henry with its exposed magazine which is right underneath the barrel.
This is what makes America GREAT!. As a Vietnam/Cambodia combt vet I was a M-60 gunner. I loved that baby. Later on my main weapon was the M2, .50 Cal. I was with the Army in Vietnam. Later, when I got home and couldn't find work, I joined the Marine Corps. We had to Qualify with the M-14 at that time. Granted, It is a wee bit in the heavy side. The ammo is heavy, as are the magazines. When it comes to distant shooting, 300 yards and beyond, the M14 is very accurate. That is why the Nayv Seals use it as one of thier simper weapons. A Marine sniper in vietnam dropped 16 NVA soldiers, one night, with no problems.But he was a Marine and iknows how to shoot. This si my opinon, and right now I wish I had one. We can agree to Disagree.
I carried the M14 for 2 years (1968/1969) and loved it,didn't really care for the M16 although it was a lot lighter
I loved my M-14.. accurate and powerful. I own an M1A now.
I liked it too. Got my expert medal with it . As a medic in 1965 it was heavy to carry along with my medical bags. 👍
Bill Csatary meet any kit carsons in nam?
@Lee Harvey Oswald the Italian bolt action did fine for you
I like mine also... for all the reasons you mentioned... M16 is also likeable...
@@enlightenedwarrior7119 proving, it ain't what someone has, it's who has it that counts.
The British army used the M15/16 in the Confrontation with Indonesia before the US forces inVietnam. The ammunition supplied was that specified by its designer Stoner. The weapon was a success and later used by certain troops in the Aden withdrawal. John
I went into the Army in 1966 and combat-trained on the M-14 and loved it. That is why I and a friend who was a Marine both own one today. OK M1A.
Great info, thanks for being so knowledgeable and articulate.
Why I like the M 14. You have presented a very innformative video here and I find no fault. I joined the Army in 57, took Basic at Ft Chaffee, AR.. I had never fired a centerfire rifle to that point. I was excited to begin rifle training. We drew rifles on the range, not the one we trained with every day... I couldn't hit shit, no where near the paper and I was at least better than that having shot thousands of 22 rounds. Needless to say, my day went to hell with my Sgt screaming and yelling unkind words until he finally took the rifle to show me how to do it. Every round he fired hit the dirt in front of the target frame like mine. The gas nut was loose allowing gas to escape in and bullets fell short at 100 yards. Of course he never apologized to me but the rifle was replaced and I went on to shoot reasonable scores. The point is, I was soured on the mighty M 1 and never liked it from then on. Fast forward to W Germany in 1961 where I was an MP in the 3rd I D when the Berlin Crisis happened and we were issued the M 14. We fired a few rounds to familiarixe and immediately fellin love with the 20 rd mag otherwise rh 2 rifles were pretty much the same. I have never fred a shot in anger in the 12 years I spent active but at annual qualificaation shot hundreds of rounds and had a lot of confidence.. Later I was aassigned to Cp Roberts, CA and acquired a significant supply of 7.62 ammp. A unit on post had the M 14 with the selector for auto fire and the CO there authorized me to draw the rifle anytime I wanted. I took it to the range area fairly often and shot old car bodies and other things on the ranges increasing my overall affection for the M 14 and its effectiveness. I never had to hump it but did the M1 earlier. I never fired it in anger or a jungle environment but if I had to go to combat today I would still want it. I own an AR 15 and love the weapon but I would prefer a rifle that reaches out and touches. It is not my intent to dismiss your information, only to give a different take.
Ur experience is pointless ur just qualifying which is basically target shooting 😅 which equals to actual fighting ur comment is irrelevant
As is typical, we fielded the weapon best suited for our last military campaign. Korea had terrain that was suitable for the M14. My Father was issued a M1 Carbine, a firearm that would have been useful in the streets of Europe but horrible in the open hillsides of Korea.
The M-1/M-2 Carbine was never designed as a weapon intended for use at long range. It was expressly designed as what modern users would call a personal defense weapon, a light, reasonably handy weapon designed for close-to-near medium range use, inside 200 yards optimally. The problem arose when troops, attracted to its light weight and ease of use, discarded their M-1s in favor of the carbine - even though they were still being called upon to fight enemies in the open, sometimes at medium or longer ranges. An uncle of mine was a U.S. Army infantryman who saw a lot of combat in Korea. He flatly credits the M-1 Garand with saving his life and making it possible for him to return home to his wife and family.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 The M2 Carbine was arguably the most effective American shoulder weapon of it's day, within the effective range of .30 Carbine. It was a low-power, lightweight assault rifle when the alternatives were SMGs firing much less powerful pistol cartridges and M1 Garands. In urban combat especially, I'd want to carry an M2.
The m16 would’ve been very effective if it existed during the Korean War actually 😅
I carried an M-14 in Afghanistan in 2009. Excellent combat rifle, real stopping power and fine balance. At 10,000 feet in the Hindu Kush, my M-14 was very effective. No jamming issues, no stoppages.
The best video I have ever seen on that subject. Greetings from the Czech republic, Central Europe!
just got back from the range with my son today...he brought his mauser...i brought my m1a...after a couple hours of shooting my son looked at me and sai "dad...the thing i like about the m1a is you just cant miss with it"...granted we were only shooting out to 400 yards with iron sights...non the less...the m1a is a fine and accurate firearm...
Vessel of the Auditor great range gun.
My favorite range rifle
M1a is. 1950s m14 isn't special accuracy wise
'M1a' is just a trademark name of the Springfield Armory company.The original M14 rifle were accurate for a battle rifle and the one's used today have all sorts of upgraded parts and barrel.
The M14 is my favorite range rifle and I own four of them.I have National Match and they are excellent in every way possible.It is the Super Match that is really wide and extra heavy
My father loved his m14 far more than the m16a1 he was issued, But I suppose he is a product of his time.
This was really insightful. Thank you.
I was with the 101st. Airborne Div. from 1963-1965. We received the M-16 in 1964. The 327 of the Division went to Vietnam in 1965 as did the 7th. Air Cav. The also took the M-16 not the M-14. For a year I was one of two men in the squad carrying a fully automatic M-14 with bipod. I never had a problem firing it on automatic utilizing a 3 round burst or more if necessary.
Thank you for the history lesson regarding the M14.
Carried an M14 in Vietnam, I own 2 m 14s. Weapon was most effective if used properly. It's a great weapon.
I share your opinion. I was in the 5th Division, carried the M14.
@@jeffreynelson2660 I was in the 4th Infantry Division
@@crashoverride4881 I drove a M113 APC and M48 tank, also 11B. It was a turbulent time. The 4th ID took some hard hits back in 67 or so.
@@jeffreynelson2660 thanks for your service, and welcome home. I was 11 Bravo, and a 19, Cavalry Scout sniper. Was in country from 68 to 69.
@@crashoverride4881 I recently visited Paul Allen's museum at Paine Field, Everett, WA, and found that they had an M48 tank cut in half so the public could walk between the halves and see the interior. Very nostalgic.
I own and shoot the Garand and m1a, the m1a is lighter, has less recoil and is more accurate than the Garand. The m16 is good for close range, but it's useless outside 400 yards and that's why the military had dedicated marksman in Iraq/Afghanistan still carrying the m14.
Military tradition belongs in West Point, not Aberdeen
Thanks for the pull-no-punches video, Chris! In Basic Training 1966 I trained with the M14 and it was issued to me my first 18 months. Then in 1968 I used both rifles for a while in Vietnam. After Nam, 1969 in Korea, again I had to lug around the M14. Like you I greatly preferred the M16 though I think the M14 is beautiful. Perfect rifle for parades and honor guard but go to war with the M16/M4! Ironically, I qualified three times in three years with the M14 while M16 qualification fell through the cracks, I never qualified with it. Didn't matter, what an easy rifle to shoot accurately. My brother went into Basic the summer of 1969 and by then training was with the M16A1. Today I have three Garand action rifles, the M1A Scout, M1 Carbine and Mini-14. And Stoner rifles, the AR-10A and a few AR-15s. That pretty much covers all the (rifle) bases.
Summer of 1970, USAF basic...for small arms qualification they gave us worn out, first model M-16's...no chrome liner, no forward assist, 3 prong flash suppressor...rattled like a can of bolts and nuts...having grown up hunting with .22rimfire, I fell in love with the M-16, no more recoil than a .22magnum rimfire and very accurate...a very practical rifle for 300meters or less and with the new propellant (not that cheap charcoal that gums up the action) was a joy to shoot...Mr. Stoner did his homework on this rifle...
A .22 magnum is a centerfire cartridge/round.
No its not !!! Its rimfire learn your ammo before you comment.
james thomas, no need to get snippy, It turns out we are both right in part. The oversize rimfire .22 cartridge was never available in Australia. And my centrefire .22 Magnum had to be surrendered during the Australian gun buy back more than 20 years ago as I did not qualify for the licence required for centrefire cartridges/guns afterwards. I hate to resort to the Wiki, but it is the best link available to demonstrate all variants. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Hornet
Great video! Enjoyed all the info and knowledge you have about this platform, which I've come to love. Thanks for all your work.
In 1969 I was issued the M-14 in basic and it was love at first sight. Later that year I went through the conversion to the M-16 and wasn't impressed, mostly the caliber 5.56, 55 grain projectile. 40+ years later I am a civilian employee working at Camp Perry and during the National Matches the Marines with their M-14s were a force to be dealt with across the course. Two years later the Army outshot the Marines with the M-16. What changed. The development of 62 grain projectile and the change to a faster rifling twist. Another change was that women could now compete due to the reduced weight of the weapon system and the minimal recoil from the AR platform. The M-16a1 of 1969 is light years from the AR platforms of today. I would bet my life on today's AR platform.
He explains the technology and politics of the weapons very well. I trained first on the M-14 but in AIT switched to the M-16. The 14 was a good traditional weapon but was indeed heavy, cumbersome, and semi-auto only. I had no trouble with my M-16 in Nam and they did upgrade it for my unit mid-1968. He keeps referring to the AR-10 in a confusing manner.
I respect your opinion sir, I genuinely thought this was an insightful video thank you
The 7.62x51mm Nato is a powerful ammunition. When i was conscript in the German Bundeswehr i shot the 7.62x51 severaltimes even full auto (Burst 3-5 shots) from a contemporary Rifle the HK G3A3 (1957 adopted for military service, my personal conscript Rifle was from 1962 with new Handguard and Buttstock to be a A3). It kicks like a mule but you can stay on target at 100 Meters firing bursts. It has the same features as the AR-10 or FN-FAL: Recoil in the line of the Buttstock and Pistolgrip. The Main Advantage of the more Powerfull "Battlerifle" Ammunition is that it is a good general-purpose machine Gun Ammunition as well. We used the MG-3 (essentially a rechambered MG-42 ) with the 7.62x51 Nato and it was good for long range cover Fire like the M60. Everyone had the same Ammunition, today the 5.56x45mm "Assault Rifle" Ammunition is lacking in Power for a general purpose machine Gun, so you are back to light and medium machine guns with different supply Chain. To fix the M-14 for fullautomatic: Barrel bellow Gas operation, Pistol Grip for Inline Stock, but that would be a complete new Rifle and complete new tooling. Every other 50's Gun did it (starting with the AK-47), only the M-14 stayed in the WW1 pattern of the M1-Grand, which is great for Bolt-Single Action but not for semi/full-automatic fire.
Love these videos. You are a wealth of knowledge, thank you for sharing.
10:40 The reason they used the 8 round clip over the box mag was 100% due to logistics. Clips were extremely lightweight, cheap, and easy to make in comparison to 20 rd magazines, and during a time where everything was rationed, the use of an 8 rd clip was far more beneficial and pragmatic in the grand scheme of things. Great video, but the idea that, the US used the 8 rd clip because we had tradition, and didn't want our soldiers wasting ammunition isn't true.
I understand your sentiment but if we step back for a second and think. Yeah a stripper clip is less steel than a box magazine. But would it be over time? Consider some of the guys that fought from Normandy until Berlin, many of them with the same rifle throughout. How many dozens upon dozens of stripper clips would they have loaded and fired during that time. How many people in the middle of firefights do you think were picking up stripper clips and reloading them to be used again? Also even if you're right about everything you could still have a fixed 20 round magazine that could be loaded using stripper clips.
@mrsanch1ful You are correct. US had tens of millions of .30-06 rounds sitting around with nothing to do so the Garand design was re-chambered for .30-06.
You would have a point if magazines were disposable but over time millions of clips must have been lost on the battlefield whereas soldiers are trained to keep , clean and look after magazines.
I went to Parris Island in August of 1964 and was issued an M-14. For the next 4 years, at every duty station I was assigned to, I was issued the M-14. Every year I had to qualify at the rifle range. When stationed with the 2nd Tank Battalion at Camp LeJeune, I set a new high score record at the rifle range. Lots of guys hated the peep sight, but I loved it. The M-14 just felt right to me. I never held an M-16...not to this day. I did not make it to Vietnam, so I'll never know how well the M-14 performed in close combat.. I don't think the M-14 was too heavy. I did many 10 mile forced marches with all my gear, and never had problems keeping up. So personally the M-14 is still my weapon of choice. It is a beautiful and accurate rifle.
You still using the radio and not a TV or cell phone grandpa? I carried a m4 and a piece of crap m9 in afghan. The new sig is just better then the m9 in every way. It's ok brother no problem admitting something is just better.
I used the M14 in Vietnam and still do today at 70 I carry it around had mine modified but it’s still heavy Point being us older Guys were built or made a little tougher then the Average and we are still today
Ill take an AR-10 over an M14 for a DMR any day.
Were you with a guy named Charlie his whole squad never used or even picked up an m16
@@inzane1260 i agree, what kind of an idiot refers to a former soldier as grandpa? Nice lack of respect there dodo. Just because you don't like it or diaagree with his choice doesn't mean it's crap or junk. He used and carried an M-14 and liked it so whats wrong with that? When the M16s were coming in they were a new light weight all new design and must have been pretty foreign feeling to our soldiers then too. Especially after we were used to using all wood and steel bolt action rifles in World War 1 and the M1 Garand in World War II so the M14 was just the next progression at the time. From everything I have heard and accounts from a couple of guys that I talked to that served over there they also preferred the M14 and said it was reliable. The trade-off for the weight vs knowing it was going to work reliably every time you pulled the trigger just seem like a normal trade-off. I have nothing against the M16 either, I'm just saying....
Very well-made informative content. Thank you!
Interesting video.. Thank you. My late father loved the FN... Saved his life when he was shot point blank in Cyprus in the 50s. The 9mm fired shattered the pistol grip on his rifle but it stopped it.
On the bright side, because of how flawed M14 was, it accelerated the development of M16 - and US ended up with a low-impulse round (5.56) a decade before Soviets did the same upgrade to their AK. If it adopted FAL, I bet it would have stuck with that until 70s or even 80s, like many European countries did.
I'd argue that the Soviet 5.45 round came about as a result of their studies of 5.56 performance in Vietnam.
You're right. I mean, eventually someone *would* have been the first to scale down to the 5-6mm range. Might have still been the Soviets - they really needed to do something about the "rainbow trajectory" of 7.62x39. But it would probably happen only after they went into Afghanistan and found it to be a problem there, which would delay it by a decade or so, too.
The Brits wanted to get into that 6mm range and probably would have if US Ordnance hadn't shoved 7.62x51 on them.
Chris,this is a classic dissertation on the inadequate M14 and the corruption of U.S Ordinance Corp. Well done that man!
You earned a sub. Great video and background info! Also no emotionally attached mambo jambo just pure history and facts.
I LOVE the M14. But you are well educated and a good historian of this topic. I can't argue your points. I'd pick an M4/M16 over a M14 in to combat. Unless of course I was a DM or sharpshooter. Then I'd take an M14 with appropriate glass.
I carried the M14 from 1964 to 1970. I loved the power and the heft of that man killer!
Grunt: The M1 and BAR have too much recoil. The BAR doesn't have big enough magazines to be a firesupport weapon. Arms designer: So you are telling me we should fuse them into one weapon? Grunt: ....
Lol to much recoil meh their heavy weapons I'd say their recoil is manageable because of their weight the m1 weighing 10 pounds and the BAR1918A2 weighing 20 pounds
Plus the BAR was not that good a weapon especially in Korea.
Alas, they didn't fuse them, they confused them. That loss of 10 pounds turned the thing into the bounce-o-matic. The only way one could say one was on target is if one claimed that the entire planet was the target in auto. Semi, if one didn't kill the SOB, you scared him to death!
I respect your opinion. 31 years, 22 infantry battalions, 5 DD214's, purple heart, Bronze star. Started with the 249, went to the 60. first time I carried an M16 was 10 years after I enlisted, Platoon point man. My last 2 tours in Afghanistan/Iraq carried an M4. Immediately put one in my safe at home upon retirement. I just purchased an M1A with wooden stock to take my father inlaw hunting. Some of my Soldiers took M14's to Iraq in 2004 (long story, sometimes having a commander act dumb is a good thing), the M21 is a good rifle. In Iraq and Afghanistan pretty much every combat action we were engaged 600m + at some point in the combat action. We tried the M16A4 as a DMR.. it did not do the job.
I'm right there with you. I grew up hearing how perfect the M1 & M14 were. I started shooting matches & discovered they weren't even reliable at the range. Especially when sand would get kicked up by the wind in NM & TX. In 1995, I switched over to a Colt HBAR. Wow! Reliable. Accurate. Soft recoil. But I already knew that having been packing the M16 & GAU-5 in the USAF.
very interesting and concise story; once again illustrating the "good old boy system" is not the way to be efficient and effective.
This was a great video, full of facts and history that I knew little about. All I ever used in the military (Air Force) starting in 1970 was the M-16 which I thoroughly liked, but I never used it in combat. I've always liked the M-1A which is the reason that I watched this video. My biggest issue is that while I agree with the presentation, I'm not wanting to get the M-1A to go to war, just to enjoy the history and do some target shooting and it still looks like a good choice to me.
Those rifles you hold up all look like they have been fantastically well looked-after.
I must disagree as an 8541 the M-14 was my back up after the M - 40 A-3 in the Root, you have a point but I have used both the M 40 platform and the M 14 in combat. I wouldn't carry an M 16 for all the tea in Chine. I cleared building's in the Root with an M 14 and never had a problem. Simply stating fact from combat experience. Have a nice day.
I enjoyed this video truly! It clears a lot of the time, what happend with the M16 and why it was so Good, and Performing so Bad. Thumps up!
I was in the Marines from 64-68, I carried an M14 the entire time, including a combat tour in the Nam 65-66 I loved that rifle, never had a hiccup with it, and never heard of any other Marine over there having a problem with it either. I had a buddy who was the armorer and he put a selector switch and Bi-pod on mine took on one operation and attempted to take out a V.C. on full auto with it and on the third round it the barrel was pointing up almost 24 degrees from where I was aiming. I never saw an M16 the entire time I was in the Corps. they were sending them all to the Nam and never issued any stateside. Some of the guys who came back about 8 months after I did were all complaining about the M16 all the jams and misfires, they hated it!
E-2-1, '66-'67, that was my take, with 6 months left on my tour, the Bn. switched over to the M-16, after a couple of months, we started to have malfunctions, I bought a .45, 1911, off a PF, for a backup weapon.
I was issued the M-14 in `67 at Cam Rhan Bay, then was told I was going to be assigned to the 3 Mar Div (was with a MACV unit)...flew into Phu Bai and had several Marines try to buy that rifle from me some offered to swap their AR-15 (M-16)...I too went to the armorer and had him put on a selector switch....only fired it on auto one time, on auto it would ride up like crazy...not so the M-16 when it was fired on auto you could lay that thing on your arm and go thru a clip and it wouldn't budge...liked the 14...trained with it... but the 16 was a much easier weapon to carry and easy to whip around...seemed like the 14 could really reach out and 'touch someone' better
Ya I did both in the nam, 14 did good, easy target acquisition and controllable on auto if tied in with sling...(rap your forearm around sling then grip stock)...as far as the early version the 16 (Mr JAM-O-Matic) it lived up to it"s name... will never, ever touch a 16 again. I rather have a weapon that fires than one that suppose too
same here...`67 ... full auto it was a hand full.
out of Phu Bai btw
Thank you for sharing some history with us! Great topic and very interesting.
Ive always considered my self knowledgeable in the rifle transition. But you shed great light on the ordinance corps. Thanks. Nice job.
Tens of thousands of American soldiers training for Vietnam lost half their hearing due to the M-14 and the military not issuing ear plugs,thousands have never been compensated for their loss.
Great history lesson. I love the M-14, but only as a sniper's rifle - not for a regular infantryman.
The standard infantry rifle for the Wehrmacht for the entire duration of WWII was the bolt action, 5 round, Mauser K98 firing the 7.92x57mm cartridge, hardly an intermediate round. The SG44 made a late appearance and was not produced in significant numbers for widespread usage.
Hitler intentionally delayed it on multiple occasions until it was too late while still not shutting down development. Makes no sense. I think his handlers made him so the war could be prolonged and more money and research funnelled into rocket development. If the US can make and issue 6 million m1 carbines and introduce a new cartridge I think Germany could have
Super informative. Watched it all the way through. Thanks. Unlike 99% of gun folks on youtube, I can tell you're really well read and experienced.