I agree. The Garand also would have malfunctioned during that test but it earned a good reputation in two major wars.Originally Posted by Ted Brown
Senior Member
I agree. The Garand also would have malfunctioned during that test but it earned a good reputation in two major wars.
Senior Member
Proper rifle maintenance was stressed in this WW2 training film.
Senior Member
Wow! A left handed Garand. Can't be many of them!
Senior Member
Wellllll, I guess none of the people I served in the Army with from 1966-1969 should have been shooting because none of us knew about proper lubrication for the M14, we weren't taught nor were we given the proper supplies. Whose fault would that be???? I do know how to lubricate a Garand system rifle now but didn't learn about it until I got my first CMP M1 and read the excellent manual that came with it. It's obvious from this thread that my experience wasn't atypical and a bunch of people in the military with non combat arms MOS did learn to maintain the weapon in various conditions because there were old timers around who taught them after basic training.
Rock is correct that an M1 almost surely would have malfunctioned in the same conditions.
Some modern rifles like the AK47 or M16 aren't as finicky about the proper lube for the conditions but can have other issues. Nothing's perfect you know.
Last edited by Art; 09-06-2015 at 07:33.
Senior Member
ART, the info was right there in the manual they didin't give you, and the lube was in the warehouses - lots available today! - they just didn't tell everyone. Incompetent Training. Not the M14's fault.
The M16/M4 is VERY finicky about clean and lubed - my friends back from the sandbox stripped and cleaned and relubed DAILY. The AK has reliability - and little else to recommend it. The AK, the ultimate peasant's weapon was designed with little care in mind. But in a test of M16A1 vs. AK by the military, both Vietnam bring backs, issue ammo for both, a skilled Army marksman could not hit a silhouette at 200 meters with the AK, put all rounds from the M16 in a six inch group - on the silhouette. I'll put up with a little maintenance. CC
Colt, Glock and Remington factory trained LE Armorer
LE Trained Firearms Instructor
Senior Member
Judging from the lack of user complaints about service rifes, it would seem that the services emphasized proper weapon maintenance during WW1, WW2 and probably Korea as well. From Art's experience and the rumors about the 'self cleaning' M16 of the late 60's, it sounds as if maintenance of all weapons was somewhat ignored during that time.
I would guess that a lightly dirty M1 or M14 will function better than an M16 that eventually collects the same amount of debris in the mechanism. The difference is the amount of shielding of the respective actions. A rifleman who is aware of the openings of his M1 is more likely to look after his rifle and open it up to remove dirt. A M16 rifleman, knowing his rifle action is somewhat sealed, may let maintenance go longer and perhaps run into trouble at a very bad time.
Senior Member
That's why they work as well as they do. A similarly maintained M1 or M14 will work as well. However, blowing large amounts of dirt into an unshielded M1/M14 mechanism will cause stoppages as seen in the video. Shielding an action is good but I have had some pretty nasty jams in my AR15 that required 3 hands and a lot of time to clear because of that shielding. With a M1/M14 it is much easier to clear similar jams.
In peasant hands, I consider the AK as a fragmentation grenade with a trigger. Sights are not used and the peasants just sprinkle an area with metal until they accidentally hit something. That ability and the reliability do make it the perfect peasant weapon but a marksman who sights in his AK can do fairly well at the shorter ranges.The AK has reliability - and little else to recommend it. The AK, the ultimate peasant's weapon was designed with little care in mind. But in a test of M16A1 vs. AK by the military, both Vietnam bring backs, issue ammo for both, a skilled Army marksman could not hit a silhouette at 200 meters with the AK
Senior Member
The AK design can be made to shoot accurately just not the usual issue weapon. The Israelis made a version that was a creditable rifle and reasonably accurate if not a target rifle. The usual issue AK has the precision and careful fitting of a cheap shovel, the ergonomics of a tree stump and the precision sights of a Daisy BB gun (well the BB gun is probably better). It is a lead hose that always works and is d**n near Siberian peasant proof. It fits Stalin's dictum that "quantity has a quality all its own." A lot to be said for a rifle that always works even if it isn't particularly accurate.
Jerry Liles
Senior Member
Russia in the 50's was not exactly a peasant nation in the usual sense. The image of Tsarist Russia, semi feudal with the majority of its inhabitants semi literate field hands hasn't really existed for at least 75 years. When the AK 47 was developed (late 1940s to mid 1950s) The Soviet Union was an industrialized country with a highly educated population capable of operating high performance aircraft, nuclear submarines and a space program. Of course its economic system was doomed to fail but that's really a separate issue.
The climate of Russia varies from harsh to brutal for much of the year and the commissars placed a high emphasis on simplicity of maintenance and reliability in their weapons and the AK 47 and its derivatives fit into that well. Those characteristics also made it a useful weapon in the hands of real peasants in "Wars of National Liberation" starting in the late 1960s when production really ramped up beyond Soviet needs.
Soviet infantry doctrine was the primary dictator of what the AK 47 turned out to be. We decided that an assault rifle should be heavy on the "rifle" part and precision marksmanship was emphasized in training and despite the fact that the M16 was very controllable in full auto fire that part was neglected. The Soviets, on the other hand, looked on the AK 47 as a long range submachine gun, capable of engaging the enemy with automatic suppressing fire out to perhaps 250 meters.
I have found, in my experience at least that the AK47s reputation for inaccuracy is a bit overstated. It has mediocre sights and a sight radius not much longer than some hunting pistols, but with my el cheapon WASR 10 I can keep all of my shots in the torso of a silhouette target at 200 yards, and with my Russian red dot sight can hold the head of the target at that distance. with an M16, probably the most accurate military rifle ever made by anyone anywhere I can consistently hit the head of a silhouette target at 200 yards no problem using the iron sights.
Last edited by Art; 09-08-2015 at 11:03.
Very Senior Member - OFC
On further questioning, he had never heard of greasing an M14 till I mentioned it. He was at the point from 1964-68, then Ranger school, and then the 82nd AB as a commo officer in Vietnam. Never heard of grease.
Phillip McGregor (OFC)
"I am neither a fire arms nor a ballistics expert, but I was a combat infantry officer in the Great War, and I absolutely know that the bullet from an infantry rifle has to be able to shoot through things." General Douglas MacArthur
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote