Project Appleseed

My purpose of posting this is to present the other side of the coin on the M14 and to get people thinking of Rifleman as a skillset not an equipment set.

Ok I'll admit that I know that posting this here is likely to cause a fuss amongst the cadre here.  I showed up at my first AS in 2008 specifically because I was a poor shooter of the M14 (an ok shooter of the M16).

After joining (the first time) the Intructor Corps in 2008, I briefly swallowed the M14 Kool-Aid.  I quickly realized that in the Rifleman equation that (rifle<man) not (rifle>man).    A Rifleman is more about mindset and skillset than any particular type of equipment.  Mushashi in the Book of Five Rings written in 1645 knew even then that a "Swordsman should not have a favorite sword" and then he goes on to talk about the different types of swords and what they are good for.

It is not specifically an AS thing, but I have noticed that at least some people believe that the answer to every problem is an M14 (or Garand, AK, 1911, etc). 

The simple fact of the matter is that the mission drives the equipment.  I certainly believe that the M14 is still a valid rifle within certain mission parameters. 



http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/

This is the opinion of this author backed up with some facts.  I suggest you read the report : http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fdtic%2Ftr%2Ffulltext%2Fu2%2F677383.pdf&ei=VzPSVJTyF4LqggTd2IHQCA&usg=AFQjCNEwXKJ4MLkbiCllxArwKRuPFTGAyg&bvm=bv.85076809,d.eXY

As it is insightful.

My own personal opinion on why the M14 is still in use in the military is that it was already there (they didn't have to go out and buy new ones) and the lack of good .308 ARs.  Given the recent improvements in the .308 Ar platforms, I expect that we will see an increase in AR10-type sales while M14-type sales go down in the civilian market.

I saw this yesterday...posted on the book of faces in order to watch a few brains melt.

By the way, no M14 bashing here at all. I love shooting my both of my M1As...prefer them to shooting the Garand.  But like the 1911, they are a passion vs a go to gun. Gimme 2 minutes to grab my favorites, I'll take a polymer wonder and an AR any day

That is great info. I knew the M14 experienced a lot of failures as a service rifle - mostly due to poor manufacturing practices dtailed in Rose's "American Rifle".

The M1A seems to have fixed those problems, and I believe there are a few knuckle-draggers still shooting them effectively.
As a runngun competitor (that's a test for rifle and user!) - they are heavy, and ammo is even heavier, compared to 5.56.
As for the AR/M16 platform, I still recommend them over the M1A/M14 every time.





For kids and women. 

It's a good article. Had the M16 been developed in .308 and all the AR-15s of today been developed in .308, then the major talking point of a M1A, M14, or any other .308 over the AR-15 platform, the caliber, would be removed.

When comparing the AR series to the M14 series, you should evaluate different parts of it separately, then combine to form an overall opinion, tailored by your needs.

-Sights: The M1/M14 sight system is windage zeroable, the M2 system is not. The detent drums of the M2 system are easier to click, and the screw won't back out on them. The flip aperture is of some use on the large setting.

-Magazines: Magwell, in my opinion, is superior to rock and lock. AR mags beat M14 mags in usability. M1 clips are a pain to load, but they CAME loaded to troops by design, so technically the M1 wins in a wartime scenario for ease of loading, but ammo capacity in a box mag goes to the AR. I know the author says you can run a M1 faster than an M14, but I'd like to see someone run the M14 Spetznaz reload style to see.

-Ergonomics: I think the safeties are a wash. Full auto versions, the selector makes more sense on the AR. I prefer the M14 charging handle. The AR is lighter, and recoils less.

-Optic mounting: I think the AR wins this one easily.

The author is correct, you will not need .308 in a self defense role in America. The thing that the M1A has going for it is that it is, outside of the AR10, one of the few US .308 semi auto platforms. I think there are Remington and Savage semi-auto hunting rifles that can do it. Once AR-10s get down to the price of AR-15s, or get closer, the major argument of the M1A will be negated.

My M1A sits happily in between the M1 and the AR, with the FNAR a couple spots over. One thing you CAN do to appreciate a M1A is to go shoot an HK91. Yikes.

Quote from: K98Al on February 04, 2015, 11:52:08 AM
That is great info. I knew the M14 experienced a lot of failures as a service rifle - mostly due to poor manufacturing practices dtailed in Rose's "American Rifle".

The M1A seems to have fixed those problems, and I believe there are a few knuckle-draggers still shooting them effectively.
As a runngun competitor (that's a test for rifle and user!) - they are heavy, and ammo is even heavier, compared to 5.56.
As for the AR/M16 platform, I still recommend them over the M1A/M14 every time.





For kids and women.

Hahahahaha, I knew the catch was coming!  Well played, Al.

Yeah, Rose pulled no punches when it came to why the M14 "beat" the FAL for the USA's new MBR back when.

Having owned and used M1's, M1A's, Hk91's, FN's, AR15's, and AR10's...

My order places AR (15 and 10) platforms above the others.


The reasons in my order of importance

1.Ergonomics, I can get a better position with the AR's.Collapsible stocks are readily available. And I can tell you that a Sage stock is not the same and certainly not better.
2.Accuracy and the ability to accurrize with off the shelp components.
3. Scope mounting
4. parts and magazine availability.
5. precision sights availability


Problems with the others.

M1- magazine capacity, scope mounting (and yes I know about scout scopes on M1's), expensive to accurize for precision shooting .
M14- magazine placement gets in the way of hand position, A flush mag helps but then you lower capacity than the M1. The scope mounts work (I have used gen 2 and gen3 mounts), but not as well as mounting on a flattop upper, expensive to accurize for precision shooting.
HK91- ergonomics, lack of precision sights, beats the brass up, scope mounting issues, VERY expensive to accurrize
FNFAL- all of the issues of the HK91 and then you can add the many examples that are parts guns and undependable.

An AR10 can beat each of the above in both competitive and tactical use. The main issue that you might find is magazine compatibility (so when you find the ones that work, buy them cheap and stack them deep).

Quote from: Big John on February 04, 2015, 12:01:04 PM
It's a good article. Had the M16 been developed in .308 and all the AR-15s of today been developed in .308, then the major talking point of a M1A, M14, or any other .308 over the AR-15 platform, the caliber, would be removed.

It was developed in 308.  The .308 Caliber AR10 came first.  It lost out in testing against the M1A because of politics.  The AR15 came later and eventually became the M16.  Early M16 rifles are marked both AR15 and M16.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyhrUr4rN7I

Thanks, I misspoke, and was aware it was developed in .308. I meant, had it stayed .308, etc, etc, etc.

Here's a link for a dust torture test of an ar, m1a, and a MAS (another DI design). Ar smokes it (surprised me too!) MAS didn't do well but the m1a utterly failed.
https://www.full30.com/video/6618755f336970e55e6c50c1fe894ff8
I'll hunt down the mud test that had very similar results.

Here she be...
https://www.full30.com/video/9eef6b3a4eb6c8846a4c8dc4b8968bc4

Anyone who says the EBR stock has something to do with it should try with their own rifle. I'd like to see an ak and/or sks trialled myself. Wanna try it with me, Itsansks? Fisherdawg can bring his m1, if he's not afraid to get it dirty!



P.S. For the not-yet-riflemen in the audience: these rifles will perform fine for Appleseed, this is just stuff gun guys get extreme pleasure in arguing about. It's still the nut behind the butt that's the most important piece.

Hords of Russians with ak's couldn't take down the Afghans with bolt actions of a heavier caliber. I would say the man of superior grit determines whether the rifles much for fighting. With that said still on the fence about getting a scar17.

Having been in combat in Afghanistan I'd say it was as much the marksman as the tactic of staying out of range of the poodle shooters. Lucky for me they traded their enfields in for AKs in the intervening twenty years. Stinger missiles helped too.

There is a lot of hyperbole backed by hearsay evidence in this authors article.  I'm having a hard time pealing back the b[ia]s to see if there's anything informative in it.  It would have been nice if he'd have shown some objectivity.  Rather than spend half the time writing about how it doesn't cut it in roles it wasn't specifically designed to fulfill.  I particularly like how he mention's a DMR role, but cites a sniper role. 

Interesting how Chinese didn't even have as many production issues as he claims THE ENTIRE LINE OF M14's EVER BUILT suffered from.  Mine's a Polytech, and it has no problems with reliability or hitting 18 inch targets at 600 yards, with de-linked MG ammo. 

I find this article terrible.  It's terribly written, and it reads more as if he's trying to prove something - for personal reasons.

Is it too difficult, these days, if you fancy yourself a writer, to write a decent, organized and balanced argument?
If the dude, really wanted to convey a point he could have just copied and pasted jmdavis' post below.

Sorry, but when someone argues that something item 'a' sucks because 'b' is better and 'c' says so - it's not a very good argument.

I've got an M14s, I figure if it's reliable enough that china can produce it relatively well - it's probably a pretty decent platform. 
I'd trust this rifle over any AR10 at the same price.  And until relatively recently, an off the rack AR-10 was more expensive than an off the rack M1a/M14 of a comparable tier - at least to the extent of my observations.

The AR-10 is becoming much more venerable these days, and if the availability and proliferation of affordable parts/options continues to rise - I might someday shelf the 14 in favor of an AR-10 of some sort.  But until I'm ready to invest $3-5K in a new platform/equipment/trigger time, I think I'll stick with my M14 as a .308 MBR-type rifle. 

Indeed it is the skill and objective of the rifleman that determines which rifle works best for them.


P.S.  There has got to be something wrong with the m1a in those videos.  Besides the fact, that the test(s) really were more about how easy it is to junk up your action than how well they perform junked - from what they showed with blowing sand at the m14, there is no way it locked up that easy.  I didn't blow sand in it, but I've thrown it at it.  I doubt it had any less sand when it fired without a hiccup.  I can only think of one instance when it failed to cycle properly.  I no longer leave those little 5rd stripper clips laying around inside my case.   

Replicate the test then.

Quote from: 509gman on February 04, 2015, 11:59:46 PM
Replicate the test then.

Sand in the action - I don't have a huge problem with.  Sand in chamber/barrel is a different story.  Not that I think it'll lock it up, but I don't need any extra rifling at this time. 

I watched the videos now that I am home. It is logical that the more open an action is and the more linear guides that are accessible there are, the more prone to getting gunked up a rifle is. The AR has less moving parts, less open holes, and the guides are in the receiver. I would like to see the G3 platform in action in these tests; I bet it would do well.

I like my FNAR for our KD stuff, but it is pretty much a civilian action with a box mag and pistol grip stock system. I am sure it would die in those tests.

Maybe I'll get a FAL or that third rifle they were testing. The only real answer to these questions is to have one of each.

I'm trying to get the guys to do an arctic test, figure we fire a rapid fire aqt, bury the rifles in snow, wait an hour and try to fire again. And do it in sub zero weather 

I was surprised. I've had mine stop on me because of grit/sand before. Very, very windy day. I believe it was a combination of grit gathering in the lube (lightly lubed) and using a chamber flag leaving the action open (stuff had easier entry to action and the chamber) + the when you don't have a mag in the thing that big hole in the bottom is an open invitation to grit. A little bump on the op-rod handle would get it going again if it didn't go completely into battery, or a little tug if it short stroked. But it was definitely choking.

I realized there was some "dust blowing around" but I figured this rifle would keep running. Not so. In the future for similar conditions, I will for sure wipe all the lube out of it I can and do my best to keep it buttoned up when not in use. Obviously more of a problem at a formal AS where a chamber flag is required, but a towel over the top would help greatly.

If I may, here is a cut and paste quote from Vicker's Tactical concerning sand and lube;

QuoteThe topic of keeping a weapon dry in desert environments comes up quite often. Sand is the ultimate enemy of guns and can wreak havoc with modern small arms. I have been part of extreme weapons testing and can tell you that I have no doubt in my mind that in sandy environments you are much better off with a gun that is lubed than one that is dry. Having sand coat your small arm like a sugar cookie with some lubricant still in place is a better situation than a completely dry weapon in a sandy environment. Your weapon may still malfunction but not anything like it would if it was bone dry. It is unbelievable how non functional a dry weapon can become in an extreme sandy environment. It will become manually operated at a bare minimum. Your best bet for a functional weapon in extreme conditions is to keep it lubed and keep it covered. It may take longer to employ the weapon depending on the cover used but it will most likely work when you need it to.

The whole article is here;
http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/weapon-lubrication/

I hope I've helped,
JoeZ

The trick is "just enough lube", it shouldn't be dripping out of the seams.

Quote from: 509gman on February 05, 2015, 02:39:41 PM
The trick is "just enough lube", it shouldn't be dripping out of the seams.

Speaking from experience and a back ground in both technician and engineering. On John Garand style guns; M1 garand, M14, M1A, ruger mini. The only reason to even use oil is to proven rust.

Run them dry. If you have stainless steel even better. You gun is not moving fast enough to need oil. Plus Steel porous it will hold more then enough if you just wipe it dry.

Some people think this guns need oil and grease to prevent wear. While Grease can help in extending wear that only if you keep it clean. Other wise it attracts dirt and holds it. Thus undoing any good.

Simple trick if you worried about wear. Is to polish the parts that have wear marks. This will do more for life of your rifle then any oil or grease can.

If you like to research it feel free to look up in material science book about wear life of polished parts vs non polished with oil.

Ill admit I was worse offender of this policy at first. But I learned. 

What about the wear life of polished parts vs. non polished with grease? Or the wear life of polished vs. polished with oil or grease?
The people that I know who shot M1's and M14's for a living keep them greased or oiled. Now granted the mid-atlantic is a long way from the desert, but...

Quote from: jmdavis on February 05, 2015, 05:46:42 PM
What about the wear life of polished parts vs. non polished with grease? Or the wear life of polished vs. polished with oil or grease?
The people that I know who shot M1's and M14's for a living keep them greased or oiled. Now granted the mid-atlantic is a long way from the desert, but...

You can keep in grease and oil. But out side of rust there not need. Polished last longer. Now if you oil polished at slow  speed not much of difference. But high speed pressure or heat then oil helps.

My comment was more about the m4/ar (which I have run dry rather well, but my sgt beat "lube yer rifle" into me pretty thoroughly). I know this thread was supposed to concern the m14, but what about lubing an ar, sks, or ak as well?

Quote from: 509gman on February 05, 2015, 09:52:45 PM
My comment was more about the m4/ar (which I have run dry rather well, but my sgt beat "lube yer rifle" into me pretty thoroughly). I know this thread was supposed to concern the m14, but what about lubing an ar, sks, or ak as well?

I don't want comment rifles out side my experience
But I think ar benefits from oil. Well all DI from my understanding. They have high temperature and tight tolerance/seals. But never played with them.

Sks and ak don't know depends on how tight the piston system is. But thinking there loose.

Buy if ever in doubt very light thin layer of oil. Like you oil wood

I don't oil my sks piston. I have been putting grease in the (how do you say?) grooves In the bolt and bolt carrier that the rails in the receiver ride in. If that's proper or not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote from: 509gman on February 05, 2015, 11:21:03 PM
I don't oil my sks piston. I have been putting grease in the (how do you say?) grooves In the bolt and bolt carrier that the rails in the receiver ride in. If that's proper or not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'd have sit down with it. Grease isn't going hurt sks or ak. Grease you can thing of as wax oil if it helps.

On ak sks worse thing happened is you get covered in grease. Grease and oil isn't bad just at worse not useful. Unless it's so thick/wet it's jamming . Gun specific of corse.

I didn't mean make oil out to be bad guy.

The Army went through a stage in which everyone was encouraged to run their rifles as dry as possible.  That lasted up to the first year or two of the GWOT when they figured that if you really needed a rifle to run past 200 rounds, you needed some lube.

Quote from: DEH on February 06, 2015, 11:06:57 AM
The Army went through a stage in which everyone was encouraged to run their rifles as dry as possible.  That lasted up to the first year or two of the GWOT when they figured that if you really needed a rifle to run past 200 rounds, you needed some lube.

correct me if I'm wrong here

So how hot is the DI system getting? I'm assume about 300-500F at lest temporarily.

It hot enough to push the carbon in to the bolt where the bolt is cooling the carbon thus the stick. but the tube is hot enough not to stick. Thus the inherent problem with DI and small caliber. The 308 was able to warm the bolt as well thus pushing carbon out of the system. (well majority of the carbon)

So that where the oil come in. The oil catches the carbon and help flush it out of the bolt system.  Which is also why DI system need to be clean a lot. You need fresh oil

Am I way off base here? I don't have DI in front of me so I just have go off what I see on the internet.

Ugh...DI reliability discussion?  Next it will be .45 vs 9mm.  Or Revolver vs auto.  It will be a repeat of every article in Guns and Ammo during the 1980s and 1990s.

DI guns run just fine.  Keep them oiled the they run.  That is a mature operating system that has been rung out.  Lots of cases of DI guns running 10-15K rounds without cleaning...just lots of oil.

All guns fail.  M14s/M1As fail.  AR15s fail.  1911s fail.  For heavens sake, at the USPSA match last week, a guy's Glock stovepiped once and failed to go into battery once.  (But, they're PERFECTION!!!!)

Learn your system.  Learn to clear malfs.  Run your gun.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/12/15/15000-rounds-counting-ar-15-torture-testing-now-sand/

https://www.full30.com/video/6618755f336970e55e6c50c1fe894ff8

https://www.full30.com/video/9eef6b3a4eb6c8846a4c8dc4b8968bc4

And remember fellow Riflemen..."you will not need a 308 for a self defense role in America"
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!