What's with the hate against the M14?

Of the cold war battle rifles, it is the one that shows its age the most. Other than that, its okay.

>>29244935
Still would have taken it over a shit early m16

most of it, me included, is just how much they cost for what they are.
Nevermind the historic ones, I'm talking the cheap springfield armory ones that run north of $1200 while the better made ones dance near $2000.
And if you're not looking specifically for a M14 clone for one reason or another, there's plenty of other battle rifle clones on the market for much lower price.

in other words: poorfag whining.

Oh, and it takes some dedication and cash to make it very accurate and the top open action gets a lot of hate.

>>29244951
>Still would have taken it over a shit early m16

I thought the big problems with early m16's were a mix of horrible marketing/training on maintenance and the overall jungle conditions?

>>29244958
That and issuing the wrong ammo. They weren't inherently bad guns, it was just the perfect storm of various circumstances that caused issues.

>>29244958
My dad was in nam in the early 60s and after the m16 was introduced he tried it out the pos jammed on first time he used he somehow got his m14 back afterwards

I don't understand this logic:

>M1 IS THE GREATEST RIFLE EVER MADE!!!111ONE
>M14 IS SHIT BECAUSE IT'S UNRELIABLE AND INACCURATE!!!

Nigga, it's basically the same type of rifle, how the fuck can you say that the M1 is great and the M14 is shit?

>>29244987
>it's basically the same gun

only to no guns retards that have no idea what they are fucking talking about.

not to mention that the M14 is a deprecated pile of crap when compared to it's peers G3 and FAL.

>>29244935
People don't like it because you can't shovel sand into the action and have it still function, which is a common trait among firearms.
They're neat rifles and I have one of the Norinco M305 copies that I got for $600 Canadabucks. The part I love most about it is the distinct ringing the rifle makes when I shoot it. It's a nice rifle, just not the best.

>>29245067
>which is a common trait among firearms.
Not the AK guns.
You can literally shove cement into the action and the AK will STILL FUNCTION!
It's indestructible.

>>29245090
There's a limit and you know it.
I said common, not universal. Some are better at handling it more than others.

>>29244935
It's basically a magazine fed M1 Garand. And while the Garand was a great gun in WW2, it was quickly made obsolete post war.

Most of the issues surround the weight of the rifle and the open type mechanism. The M14 is really not a rifle that can tolerate any sort of gunk near its action. Its design also leads to being time consuming (read expensive) to manufacture.

The AR10 and later the AR15 both beat it hands down.

File: 22386592.jpg (143KB, 788x600px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 788x600px

As rifles in the hands of civilians, they're fine. Pull the trigger and bullets come out, no major problems. A bit expensive, but that's about it

As actual military rifles however...Overweight, Cumbersome, High recoil, Heavy ammunition and all in all was a pretty outdated platform. FAL variants were in service for most of the western world when the M14 was adopted, and that's arguably a much better design.

The deal breaker with M14's was that they tried to fulfil too many roles, and please too many crowds. This was done for multiple reasons, Universal weapons system (Ironically what the AR-15 would eventually become), an attempt to simplify logistics (All soldiers rifles using the same parts would make them easier to replace in the field) etc.

The idea was that a standard rifle could also function as both a DMR and a Support gunner on the field. They failed as a Support Gunner rifle as the soldier couldn't carry enough ammunition to maintain suppressing fire (it also limited the amount of ammo could be transported to the field, counter-intuitively limiting logistics), and failed as a general soldier rifle as the rifles themselves were too heavy, had too much recoil even for their weight, and also suffered from the limited ammo problem.

They faired very well as a DMR however, as they were quite accurate, had a good hard hitting round and since a Designated Marksman does not need to worry about suppressing fire or weight that much. They're still used by branches of the US military today in a DMR configuration.

>TL:DR: Nothing intrinsically wrong, Just outdated for the time it was introduced and flawed in it's approach for a "Soldiers Rifle"

>>29245090
Glocks, too.

>>29244955
This. I wanted one in the worst way when I turned 18. Every time I had enough money saved, the price jumped up. Even used, they're just retarded expensive.

>>29244946
so in other words, you can't tacticoolize it

>>29245334
You can add a sage stock, but that makes it horrendously front-heavy.

>>29244994

I've never done much research into the difference between the two. I know the M14 had a different gas system, magazine fed, and was full auto capable but what else am I missing?

>>29245334
>what is the Mk14 EBR