testtest

M14 and the War on Terror: One Veteran’s Experience

keener said:
I carried the M-14 in Vietnam in 1967 & 1968 and are combat load was 40 magazines . I doubled as company sniper. The M-14 is a great weapon and I never had any malfunctions what so ever. In Iraq I carried the M-16A1 and I have no use for the AR 15 platform. I will take a M-14 any day , same goes for my Browning .45 that I also carried in Vietnam , as far as I`am concerned the 9mm is worthless . I know that the younger generation prefers the AR-15 and the M-4 and the 9mm, not me. With the M-14 and a.45 I have real fire power that I can always count on when my life is on the line in combat. Robert keener
Click to expand...
Thank you for your service sir.
 
Talyn said:
Good article. Glad the user kept his two simple with the standard stock vs. adding on un-neccessay bulk & weight.

Agree with the user that it best serves as a DMR vs a hard-core sniper platform.

As others have said the M14 had it's time & place but with a variety of AR-10-type rifles out there that are easiler to use & maintain there are better options for the troopers.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with you th
 
ROBERT W HANSEN SR. said:
I don’t agree with you th
Click to expand...
The AR-10 it weight is greater than the M-14/M25 I have used for years and years it’s only 12.5 pounds and is balanced perfectly! It has all the gear on it the navy side focus Scope SADLAC steel mountings with 30MM navy extra low steel rings Henzolt and Fero Tactical Combat Rings the bipods 9-13Inch. Legs pod lock with polymer handle cheek rest by navy distribution. A Proper MK14 SOPMOD sling. Tools inside buttstock. Drag Bag. OD Green. Standard issue in 1991 rectangular type bag. Black Hawks!! All weight together is 12.5 pounds. You can’t beet the M14/M25. By the way. Mine is Title Two Class three original USGI. ISSUE!! Robert W Hansen Sr. Owner/CEO. Hansen Bros Arms, INC. Title Two MFG/Dealer. Both. 49 years!
 
ROBERT W HANSEN SR. said:
The AR-10 it weight is greater than the M-14/M25 I have used for years and years it’s only 12.5 pounds and is balanced perfectly! It has all the gear on it the navy side focus Scope SADLAC steel mountings with 30MM navy extra low steel rings Henzolt and Fero Tactical Combat Rings the bipods 9-13Inch. Legs pod lock with polymer handle cheek rest by navy distribution. A Proper MK14 SOPMOD sling. Tools inside buttstock. Drag Bag. OD Green. Standard issue in 1991 rectangular type bag. Black Hawks!! All weight together is 12.5 pounds. You can’t beet the M14/M25. By the way. Mine is Title Two Class three original USGI. ISSUE!! Robert W Hansen Sr. Owner/CEO. Hansen Bros Arms, INC. Title Two MFG/Dealer. Both. 49 years!
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your opinion.

Do you have an AR-10 rigged out like your M-14/M1A in order to compare the two?

Anyhow, anyone can rig out either rifle with as much stuff as they want to meet their needs. I wasn't comparing base weights.

My NM M1A is rigged out similar to yours. My others aren't.

My AR-10 is rigged out differently because it serves a different role than my M1A (as a DMR). So, their weights, are different with my AR-10 being lighter.

The point I was trying to make was the person in the article the kept his two simple with the standard stock vs. adding on un-necessary bulk & weight.

But the bottom line, as I originally made, is the AR-10-type rifles out there that are easier to use & maintain than the M1A.

BTW I've used M1As for 30+ years.
 
BTW, comparing base/empty weights here's some info.

Springfield Armory says their standard M1A weighs 9 lbs. 3 oz., and their Scout squad is 8.8 lbs. (8 lbs. 13 oz.)

The variety of AR-10-type rifles weigh from 7.25 to 8.9 lbs., but the new Ruger SFAR (16/20" barrel) weighs 6.8 lbs. (6 lbs. 13 oz., and 7.3 lbs. (7 lbs. 5 oz.) respectively.
 
I like gas piston rifles, and the FN Scar 17S is a great alternative to the old DI AR-10

17S compared to a fully modernized M14:

In this case barrel length, profile and caliber are the same. Pistol grips are the same. Flash hiders are the same. They both have flip up battle sights. They both have 2-stage triggers. They both have retractable butt stocks. They both use a gas piston system. They both have a charging handle on the right side. The capabilities of both rifles are virtually identical. As I mentioned, the barrel length, profile, weight, and caliber are the same, however, the SCAR 17S has a 1:12 twist whereas the Smith Enterprise built CQB-16 M14 has a 1:10 twist, and it is chambered for M118-LR. I believe this difference gives this M14 an advantage over the 17S because it can better stabilize heavier projectiles, including sub sonic rounds.

The one on top uses a lot of plastic - it weighs a little over 8 lbs. as pictured.
The bottom one uses a lot of steel - it weighs a little over 10 lbs. as pictured.

308-16.25.JPG
 
KillerFord1977 said:
… and heavy 😬
… but pure fun 🙂
Click to expand...
Yep on both counts.

But the FAL distributes its weight better.

The M-14/M1As' weight is higher and really gets top-heavy when you add the scope & mounts on it. That's why its' better used as a DMR but the M-14/M1A has better iron sights.

The FAL is better as a combat rifle with much better ergonomics, controls and much easier to open up and clean like an AR. Plus, the adjustable gas system is a big advantage over the M-14/M1A.
 
Talyn said:
Yep on both counts.

But the FAL distributes its weight better.

The M-14/M1As' weight is higher and really gets top-heavy when you add the scope & mounts on it. That's why its' better used as a DMR but the M-14/M1A has better iron sights.

The FAL is better as a combat rifle with much better ergonomics, controls and much easier to open up and clean like an AR. Plus, the adjustable gas system is a big advantage over the M-14/M1A.
Click to expand...

I prefer the G3/HK91 to the FAL…both over the M14.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top