this really broke my bubble with the M14 even MORE!

[Griff Murphey]

None of my guns are subjected to combat conditions. Usually I wipe the exterior down with Hoppes. If going for storage I may use any of the preservative spray oils, applied with a patch. Occasionally I put a drop of LSA on the receiver rails, underside of the bolt, and op rod spring. Sometimes on op rod springs I use outboard motor grease, similar to Libriplate. They run very well.

[Major Tom]

Ever since my tour in 'Nam where I carried the M14, I have considered the M14 superior to the M16.

[UUURah]

If the M-1 was truly "the finest battle implement ever devised by man ..." as Patton said, and the M-14 corrected all the "flaws" in the M-1, then what does that make the M-14?

I don't guess all you M-14 haters care to answer that....

[Art]

I am not a "hater" of the Garand system. I carried an M14 in the military and I enjoy shooting them, they just wouldn't be my first choice today for a weapon for "serious social interactions."

When it was put into service in 1936 the M1 was the best infantry rifle in the world by a lot. Garand corrected some real design flaws in the M1 in the M14, one thing that particularly bugged me about the M1 feed system was that the follower can be put in backwards just as easily as it can be put in correctly. When this occurs it is impossible to load a clip into the weapon. I understand that in when the M1 was the service weapon every day "boots" on the range were getting their butts chewed for incorrectly assembling the rifle. Unfortunately the rifle was very easy to assemble incorrectly. The M14 by going to a box magazine not only fixed this problem but eliminated a bunch of small parts that could be very easily lost when dismounting the rifle in the field for cleaning, especially in the field. I especially liked the fact that the little pin used to retain the operating spring assembly is captive on the M14. The rifles are also finicky about lubrication.

Chesty Puller considered the M1 inferior to the M1903 and continued to hold it until the results in combat were too obvious to be ignored.

I have an emotional attachment to vintage firearms when it comes to history and recreational shooting, they connect me to another time. I do not have an emotional attachment to weapons when it comes to staying alive. An M14, properly cared for and lubricated for the conditions one finds oneself in can still be a useful combat weapon, and is still used by the military for specialty jobs. It just wouldn't be my first or second choice today if I had to depend on one rifle.

Just my devalued $.05

[nf1e]

I would like to point back to post #4. There is no comparison between and M14 and a SAI M1A other that a similarity in appearance. Having used both the M14 and the M16 in Viet Nam in the 60s, I would not have to think twice about my choice in a hostile situation. The M14 is numero uno on all counts. I don't know about the Army, but in the Marine Corps, we were taught proper maintenance and lubrication. My weapons were cleaned at least once per day and quite a bit more often if I had the time. We found that with the M16, often a man's first shot was his last. That will not happen again on my watch.

Semper Fi
Art

[purple]

It's always interesting to hear about the "sand cuts" on the bolt carrier of the British L1A1 FAL. I was trained on and used the Canadian C1A1 FAL which didn't have these and we did use the rifle in sandy conditions. Any rifle will tend to clog in the sand, even the old desert standby the Lee-Enfield. One of the really nice things about the FN was that it could be so easily stripped to major parts for rapid cleaning in the field, so I really don't think that the sand cuts would have made any difference. The keys to success in the sand are user training and vigilance, very little oil, and the availability of suitable cleaning brushes.

[Art]

I talked to a friend tonight who was in the Marine Corps from 1964-1970. He told me that they used the M14 in Boot Camp and the M1 in Infantry school at that time. He also said that they were issued Lubri-Plate for use with both weapons and taught how to lubricate them for all conditions; competent administration is a wonderful thing. He has also told met that the problems with the M16 early on were due to improper training, especially the doctrine that the weapon was not to be cleaned, compounded by defective Winchester ball powder ammunition which was not only very dirty but way overpressure as well. He does prefer the Garand system.

[Rock]

Garand corrected some real design flaws in the M1 in the M14, one thing that particularly bugged me about the M1 feed system was that the follower can be put in backwards just as easily as it can be put in correctly. When this occurs it is impossible to load a clip into the weapon. I understand that in when the M1 was the service weapon every day "boots" on the range were getting their butts chewed for incorrectly assembling the rifle. Unfortunately the rifle was very easy to assemble incorrectly. The M14 by going to a box magazine not only fixed this problem but eliminated a bunch of small parts that could be very easily lost when dismounting the rifle in the field for cleaning, especially in the field. I especially liked the fact that the little pin used to retain the operating spring assembly is captive on the M14.

I know that some dislike certain design features of the M1 but I never considered the M1 a flawed design. It worked the way the Army intended.

I can see how an error could be made but that's the first I've heard about widespread follower assembly errors by troops. Also, although it is not taught in the Army manuals, it is possible to remove the Op Rod and Bolt without removing that pin and and all the small parts. This 'shortcut' makes M1 disassembly as simple as M14 disassembly. I do it all the time.

[Art]

I know that some dislike certain design features of the M1 but I never considered the M1 a flawed design. It worked the way the Army intended.

I can see how an error could be made but that's the first I've heard about widespread follower assembly errors by troops. Also, although it is not taught in the Army manuals, it is possible to remove the Op Rod and Bolt without removing that pin and and all the small parts. This 'shortcut' makes M1 disassembly as simple as M14 disassembly. I do it all the time.

I don't think it was widespread after training and I don't think it happened in training after the instructors jumped the first couple of basic trainees or boots showed up on the line with a rifle that couldn't be clip loaded and paid the price so I want to clarify that. People with all levels of mechanical competence and attention to detail show up in basic training.

I think there is a subtle difference between a design flaw as in something that had room for improvement but doesn't affect the functioning of the weapon, and a flawed design meaning the weapon (or any other device) does not function as intended. I think the lack of a true ejector on the Lee Enfield rifles is a design flaw, while it works most of the time, ejection is always weak and if the little extractor spring which is necessary to press the cartridge case against the left receiver wall weakens significantly at all, and it will eventually, ejection becomes problematic with maddening regularity. While the M1 follower design works as intended when assembled properly it doesn't work if the follower is reversed which is very easy to do. Just one small change in design would have made it impossible to install the follower incorrectly.

I think that the fact that in most Mauser rifles a round can't be loaded directly in the chamber is a flaw restricting the user to five rounds. A trick was developed to get around this that was actually taught, at least in some countries to allow the weapon to be carried with five rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. This doesn't make the basic design flawed its just an area that have been easily corrected and was in the M1903 rifle but never was in the classic Mauser 98 design.

[Cecil]

Without seeing the video you really have no idea on the conditions or the test itself.

I saw the video and that was sand in the extreme. I've owned 17 M1A's in my lifetime some of which were fired in very miserable conditions . Unless there was a "Zombie Apocalypse" why would you shoot under those conditions with large chunks of sandy rock in relative gale force wind. That's the only way that large stuff could jump in the chamber. If I throw enough dirt at any weapon I'm guaranteed a failure. Give me realistic sand with realistic wind then we'll see.