>5 year life as standard issue Has the US military ever adopted

>>32076839
>it killed people
>then technology happened
Woah.

>>32076851
>it killed people
>implying it didn't jam or miss because the guns were that inaccurate

>>32076867
>I live by the meme, I die by the meme
You know, history dictated by 4chan is a little skewed.

File: IMG_0240.png (952KB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

952KB, 1334x750px

>>32076839
The m667 a1 steak sauce musket
>I love you too dad

>>32076867
>>32076867
I hate the M14 as a issue rifle, but holy fuck to say its inaccurate is just false.

File: tmp_26633-IMG_20161104_2237344960146382.jpg (2MB, 4896x3672px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4896x3672px

Triggered

You probably like m16s and ARs too.

My neighbor served in Nam. Was super pissed when they took his away and gave him a shitty jamming m16. Said his life was hell until he killed a charlie and took his AK

>>32076839
I can kill you with it

>>32076890
t. "I haven't read the Hitch Report"

File: 1470068122640.jpg (41KB, 516x465px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 516x465px

>Sergeant First Class Shughart routinely carried the M14 in Somalia. On October 03, 1993, his M14 rifle was equipped with a leather sling and an Aimpoint 7000 dot sight.

>October 03, 1993

File: LRRP.jpg (11KB, 234x206px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 234x206px

>>32076891
>>32076891
My grandpa was a LRRP team leader and he said the M14 was useless in combat, said the CAR15 is the perfect weapon.

>pic related

>>32076891
the old man next door hasn't been telling you fibs again has he jimmy

>>32076918
>it's too heavy
>better tell them it's useless
It and it's descendants have worked fantastically as dmrs and such. Unless dmrs arent used in combat.

>>32076939
>have worked fantastically
i dont have a reaction pic suitable to express just how wrong this is

>>32076939
Running around in a jungle out numbered 10:1 isn't a place where a M14, or any DMR would shine.

>>32076955
M1Afags actually believe this.

The AR-10 is a superior platform in literally every aspect. Modularity, weight, accuracy, reliability, cost, everything.

File: arino_smile_and_optimism_gone-282x300.jpg (19KB, 282x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 282x300px

>>32076939
>have worked fantastically

Meh like the SKS it's a transitional rifle.

>>32076892
>bang >click
M>iss
Aaaaayou can't kill meme nigger

>>32076839

You'll never serve at any capacity, so why does it matter to you what the military adopts?

File: 1903Rod BayonetEdition.jpg (22KB, 700x142px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 700x142px

>>32076839
This thing...

File: 100_0177.jpg (3MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4608x3456px

>>32076975
This

>>32076968
It's as if, hold on, maybe, maybe it was used in later wars as a DMR and was more useful? No, that can't be!

>>32076899

Nobody has because it doesn't exist.
Someone on the internet made it up.

>>32077051
The DTIC link is currently down, but that wasn't always the case.

>>32077037
no, not really. they were only turned into DMRs because they couldnt do anything else with them. theyre barely passable in that role because they take extensive modifications and maintenance to allow a level of accuracy new production precision rifles come off the line with and maintain with almost no effort.

>>32077070
Another anon knows about DTIC (first I seen it mentioned), that site is awesome.

>>32077037
OP specified standard issue

>>32076939
>have to carry heavy shit around not shooting it 99% of the time
>weight is not an issue

sounds legit

File: fal_280br.jpg (13KB, 666x148px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 666x148px

>>32076851
>then technology happened
Yeah, and ol' '14 was one step behind the whole fuckin way.

File: PSMix_2016-11-21-21-17-23.png (4MB, 2362x948px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2362x948px

>>32077010

>>32076839
Some sort of musket?

>>32077201

you got SW radio?
can you run a half mile with a rifle and 300 rounds ammo?

these things matter

>>32077201
this guys right. anyone whi cant see the blatent signs is a fool.

buy a rifle now, save a soul later. (by sending them to their maker)

File: brookemarks.jpg (60KB, 1280x688px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x688px

>>32077201
>You can call me a nutcase but you would be wise to heed my words, I've been on /k./ forever and love you faggot ass faggots. Please get ready for what is coming.
>Tanks 30min out
mhmm.....

File: 1338147154604.jpg (532KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1024x768px

>>32076839
Not awful, just outdated before it was even issued.

>>32076891
Your neighbor was lying
>>32076939
>Worked fantastically as a DMR
Yeah, with a whole lot of specialized gunsmithing work and $1k chassis. There's a reason it was replaced with the M110 as quickly as possible.

>>32077302
but if thats the case why is it still being used?

>>32077330
>why is it still being used
It isn't tho.

File: 1260689007822.jpg (131KB, 700x516px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 700x516px

>>32077330
It's only being used because there's still in military stock and we're cheap. 7.62 can reach farther so hey, let's throw it into a designated marksman role.

>>32077316
and the M110 is being replaced faster than the M14 was

>>32077363
And?

>>32077373

And then???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkdyU_eUm1U

>>32077419
As in, what's your point? The M110 is being replaced by another AR pattern that is supposedly better, it's not like they switched back to the M14.

>>32077435

and then?

>>32076839
Crag Jorgensen failed as well. Trapdoor Springfield was also a second rate stopgap measure. US has a history of adopting somewhat under performing weapon systems and then making them work.

The M14 is plenty reliable and accurate. Certainly no worse than the M1. That said there were definitely better options available and it really was US ordnance board fuckery that got in the way. Accepting substandard products from the vendors compounded the problem. By design the M14 is a perfectly capable battle rifle, but poor QC and standards did let it down. Hence the report.

It also failed to do what they wanted. It was supposed to replace not only the M1 (which it did very well), but also the carbine, m3 and m1918a1. That it couldn't do. Only an assault rifle family could and the ordnance board didn't know or didn't want to accept that fact.

I speculate that had they adopted the FAL for instance, it would have failed similarly. It too has limitations with accuracy and reliability in adverse conditions, which would be amplified by sloppy QC since it would probably be manufactured by the same vendors. Instead, we'd be bitching about the American FALs being shitty and speculating that had the US adopted an improved Garand things would have been different.

>>32077435
Hk417 platform is not a AR platform. Also the idea of having a full size billet being standard issue in a jungle is insane

>>32076891
Hi Max Brooks.

>>32076839
probably the m50 reising

>>32077302
It really isn't anymore, and as a DMR it was terrible. The M-14's service really has very little going for it.

The Lee Navy rifle was pretty short lived.

>>32077474
Wumbo you truly are the best trip

>>32077474
>but poor QC and standards did let it down.

Which would imply that it works well with perfect QC and a practically bespoke armory treatment. It didn't.

Sure, if you ignore the giant pain in the ass it is to get an M14 to National Match standard and keep it at NM standard, what with having to periodically re-bed it.

It's a gigantic turd.

>>32077564
>as a DMR it was terrible
Then why has it outlasted every single other 7.62x51 DMR the US has fielded since?

>>32077708
That's a non-sequitur

>>32076918
I never got this, veterans today, complaining and trying to put forth their opinions on their service rifle is belittled and mocked by a lot on /k/. Yet, there's still people on here that take the even larger drafted veterans at their stone cold words as conviction on their service rifles and opinions as word of gold tier?

>>32077765
As it turns out, veterans do a lot of bullshitting

>>32077474
>Crag Jorgensen failed as well.
It lasted 5 years longer than the M14. IIRC it got bad press at the time of the Spanish-American war. Can you explain that to me?
-Is the reloading system that much worse than the Mauser?
-Was the velocity difference [between .30 Army and 7mm Mauser that big of a deal? Why and how is 220gr@~1900fps so much worse than 172gr@~2300fps?
-And speaking of velocity, why did the US choose a 220 grain bullet? The Mauser bullet isn't that much heavier than modern military loadings of 7.62 NATO, so why use a 30% heavier bullet in 7.62 Krag?

>>32077009
Underrated post.

>USA in a time when Mauser clones/derivatives were the shit
>USA decides to clone Mauser
>make enough differences to hopefully skate by on copyright
>fail to make enough differences to skate by on copyright
>pay royalties to the country you are at war with
>it can't be produced fast enough
>have to make another, much better Mauser derivative to equip your men in WW1
>WW1 ends
>glorify the first Mauser ripoff that saw almost no combat, while trying to forget the second even though it equipped the bulk of US forces in the war
>pre-Garand Murreens begin WW2 with their shitty Mauser clone instead of the better Mauser clone

File: DF4V9Pq.jpg (39KB, 430x492px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 430x492px

>>32077481

dumbest motherfucker confirmed

>>32077849
>>32077474
Wumbo get in here

>>32077849
Krag mostly failed due to the cartridge. Low pressure meant a single lug design was used, which limited upgrade potential. It's also rimmed, which would cause problems when new-fangled machine guns became a thing. It was also a bit complicated in design, manufacture and field maintenance.

That said not irredeemable, Norwegian Krags were used well into WW2 with 2 lugs in a more powerful cartridge (can't recall if it was .30-06 or 8mm Mauser). Again, early adoption, second rate design. They kind of just dropped it though, even though the Norwegians proved it could work.

File: 2016-11-22 00.18.20.jpg (392KB, 1490x1159px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1490x1159px

>>32076839

>>32076839
The rifle was getting outdated when it was adopted. That said, if Vietnam never happened, we probably would have been using it well through the 80s
The military didn't need a long 11 pound rifle to fight in a jungle loaded down with 1.5 pound magazines.

>>32076975

>new built AR-10s are better than refitted M14s

Yeah. No shit. A brand new DMR is better than a 60 year old surplus rifle with a refitted body.

Meanwhile both are shit and outperformed by every actual issued DMR by a modern military using the same calibre.

But hey ho.

>>32077037
The army standardized the M21 as it's official sniper rifle during Vietnam - and it remained until 1988 with the M24's adoption - although the army did intermittently use Model 70/Rem 700 custom built guns as well as accurized G3 variants (SF usage).
That said pretty much every fucking single issued sniper/DMR M14 variant suffered from glass bedding woes (including M21) until the marines came along with the M14 DMR with the Mcmillan stock in the very late 90's.

Carlos Hathcock for example used to baby the fuck out of his bedded accurized M14

>>32077363
The M110 is a heavy beast equaling the EBR in weight but I personally resent that the M110A2 contract went to the G28 instead of the LMT.

The EBR has the advantage in that it's more portable than the M110/SR-25 esp when you have 16-18" variants but now everything is getting replaced by H&K

>>32076891

You say that then your image is SA which is MADE IN BRAZIL lmao

>>32077708
The sheer shittiness of the M14 as a DMR is the stuff of legends, anon. I wish ThatGuy was here to rave about it.

Unless you like bedding your stock as part of your maintenance schedule.

>>32078370
what about the last question?

>why was the 220 grain bullet chosen, instead of a lighter and faster load?

>>32077474
I honestly thing the BM-59 was everything the M-14 tried to be - it could be a compact paratroop/mountain/jungle folding stock carbine or a handy 19" infantry rifle - we're talking about a rifle that ceased being a standard infantry rifle in 1990 - many many years more than the M-14 and based heavily off the Garand like the M-14 was

>>32076911
Thank you for Correcting the Record.

>>32077474
The M-14's biggest problem was it was a rifle designed for the open plains of Europe - and it's first engagement was a close in jungle environment.

But it's perplexing because many forces used the FAL to great success in jungle environments - particularly after the realization of bush/cover shooting - suppressing 7.62 real fucking Nato fires tearing through jungle brush like nobodies business

File: 1470350487419.png (690KB, 850x464px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 850x464px

>>32077010

am i the only one who thinks extended rails on scars look pig disgusting?

File: WinchesterM14.jpg (301KB, 1280x917px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1280x917px

>>32078726
Because the Army was fucking retarded and believed that a heavier round nose bullet was better then a lighter spritzer. The 30-03 was the same way, they didnt change until they developed the 30-06.

>>32076899
You're a fucking moron. DM's and special ops still use the m14. They are accurate, reliable, and solid.

>>32077849
The Krags biggest problem in US service was single loading doctrine, the absence of chargers, and a shitty caliber compared to european krags - larger diameter but worse ballistic performance.
The Krag system itself is fantastic
TLDR the early Springfield M1903 with Rod Bayonets firing .30-03 were dogshit too

>>32077765
I suspect most of the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been won by Ruger 10/22s, stern language, and air support, so the opinions don't carry as much weight.

>>32078081
Basically
>M1917/P17/P14 was the best rifle of WW1

I agree - the only reason the Springfield continued as standard issue is basically "Hurr USA design, hurr target sights, hurr M1903A1 is lighter"

The M1917 should have been lightened and upgraded

>>32078699
The McMillan and Sage EBR stock eliminated bedding woes but tacked on the weight

>>32076918
my grandpa said his 1911 jammed and was shit so he stole a jap's nambu and it saved his life

>>32076839
If it had been developed before or early on in WW2, it would have been amazing as a modern service rifle.

Where it's seen success is how well liked and preferred it was to its replacement. In Vietnam, they were preferred heavily over the M16A1. It was accurate, powerful and durable. Carrying it gave a soldier a better sense of confidence than the M-16.

Where it shines brightest is the use it has seen as a sniper rifle and a DMR.

Sure the M-16 improved with later variants and today the platform is among the most common with civilian gun owners. But the M-14 is still in use.

Can't say I'd call it a failure.

>>32077849
Krags were chambered for the .30-40, which was a relatively low pressure round. The 7mm is much more powerful but it shoots significantaly flatter, being called by some a "miracle cartridge" because of performance that outdoes what it should on paper. Use for elephants and such to great effect back when Great White Hunters gave no fucks.

Anyway, the rifle itself was inferior to the Mauser in strength and speed of reloading, so even if they bothered upgrading it with a better loading system they couldn't possibly give it better ammo. That said, it was good for what it was, just outclassed by more forward thinking militarizes. Also, lolspitzer

Ironically, the Lee Navy as somebody previously mentioned was ahead of its time. Straight pull bolt action chambered in what amounts to .243 Winchester before the 1900's? Shiiiiit! Thing of it is, powder and metal technology couldn't handle it. The powder itself burned hotter than it should've and the high speed of the projectile raped barrels. Final nail: wasn't a .30-40, so logistics were fucked.

>>32079002
>In Vietnam, they were preferred heavily over the M16A1. It was accurate, powerful and durable. Carrying it gave a soldier a better sense of confidence than the M-16.

Citation needed, nigga.

File: 6b075cfb126705e9fc108cdf8611ea52.jpg (16KB, 236x324px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 236x324px

>>32076839

Apparently it ( or at least the Chinky M305 copies) are pricks to reload for- if the primer is even slightly proud it will fire out of battery. Never seen it happen, comes from a source i believe.

File: em2280british.jpg (112KB, 772x490px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 772x490px

>>32076839
it should never have been adopted

the .280 british and the EM-2 filled the design brief much better but the US brass insisted on 7.62

>>32080002
When the fuck will this meme die?

>>32076839
The reason for these M14 hate threads boggle my mind.
>Haha, the M14 was replaced by the M16 in vietnam
>The m16 was the first AR!
>goddamn I love ARs so fucking much
>m14 BTFO my AR10
>hnnnggggg AR masterrace, the m14 was UTTER SHIT compared to glorious AR
>lel, i heard stories that soldiers hated the m14 and loved the m16! this is evidence the AR is the best.
>why do we even bother using retrofitted M14s nowadays when ARs exist?
>Don't you dare fucking mention how M16s were largley unreliable during Vietnam. That is utter heresey, a-a-and a lie!

Seriously, AR fags stay in /arg/ if you want to jerk eachother off. Dont make hate threads just to talk shit about the rifle that came before it. The M14 was a fine rifle, nothing spectacular though.

>>32078803
>DM's and special ops still use the m14.
Do they? Its not 2006 anymore anon.
>They are accurate, reliable, and solid.
If you have literally no other 7.62 semi in inventory, then sure, they're the best thing for the job.

>>32080493
when it stops being true.

if the design brief is for a intermediate cartridge, capable of both comfortable and controllable automatic fire and accurate lethal fire out to 500 yards or more in a rifle then yeah .280 british beats 7.52 nato, its lethal, and has less recoil and blast.

>>32078696
It's not made in Brazil, and it never, ever was. It used to be cast in Canada and assembled in the USA, now casting is done in the US too

>>32080617
If the muzzle energY, velocity, and weight is greater than 7.62x39 it's going to kick harder than 7.62x39

>>32080631
and a hell of a lot less than 7.62x51, and the EM-2s design meant felt recoil was less

>>32076839
The M14 is a great rifle, and in 1957 (I know the image says 1959 but I recall it being adopted in 1957) most of the non-Communist world were going with battle rifles instead of assault rifles. So it's not like adopting the M14 was 'behind the times'. Yeah I consider the AKM (adopted 1959) to be a FAR better overall firearm, but assault rifles really hadn't come into their own yet. Yes, it would have been better if America would have adopted an assault rifle, but considering the time, having a select fire battle rifle instead wasn't exactly a stupid decision. NOWADAYS it is, because the whole WORLD has moved on to assault rifles.

In the 1950s, what did they have? STG-44 (heavy as shit and expensive as fuck), AK-47 (somewhat lighter), vZ.58 (God-tier), AKM (Utterly cheap, fairly light, and functionally fantastic), and... that's pretty much it, as I recall. Then America got the XM16 on the go (jam-o-matic because it needs special ammo and they made the stupid claim that it doesn't need to be cleaned when actually it needs to be cleaned just about as often as possible), and eventually the M16A1 which actually turned out to be an overall acceptable service rifle though I recall it being heavier than the AKM when both firearms are unloaded.

Anyways, the M14 is a great rifle provided you stick to semi-auto, just like the M1 Rifle is a great rifle, and they're both great for the 1950s, and I'd even say right through to the 1970s-80s when Nato nations REALLY started to jump on the assault rifle bandwagon (Steyr AUG for Austria and Australia, L85 for Britain, C7/C8 (M16/M4 basically) for Canada, and so on. Was the G36 of the 1990s the first assault rifle adopted by Germany since the STG-44/STG-45? What about Switzerland; didn't the Sig 550 only come out in the 1990s-2000s?

>>32080638
>So it's not like adopting the M14 was 'behind the times'.
Considering one of the alternatives was a US made FAL, it kind of was. If they had gone with the T48, they would have had a far more modern rifle as well as relative parts commonality with commonwealth countries, which would have been a massive boon for everyone in Vietnam as well as the cold war as a whole.

>>32078081
Agreed that although it's heavier than the M1903, the M1917 was superior. I have not handled an M1903, but I've owned and handled both a Kar98k and M1917. M1917 is smoother, has better sights, and likely has a stronger action due to that beefy-as-fuck third safety lug.

>>32078854
I would consider the Mk.III* to be the best rifle of WWI. Well, perhaps the original Mk.III specifically just because it has the addition of windage-adjustable rear sights, but come on, who actually USES windage-adjustable rear sights on irons? It's got the smoothest bolt (yes, smoother than the M1917, and though I haven't handled a P14 I dare say it's smoother than that as well due to the 60 degree bolt turn instead of 90 degrees), the highest capacity of any standard-issue bolt-action rifle (btfo with that prototype 20-rnd Mauser mag. We're talking standard issue, and standard for bolt actions in BOTH World Wars was 5 or 6 rounds), and had the God-tier P07 shortsword bayonet that didn't even contact the barrel, though to be fair, just about the entirety of the wooden stock did, but to my knowledge there were no standard-issue bolt actions in WWI with free-floating barrel, and the only standard-issue bolt action in WWII that I know of with a free-floating barrel is the No.4.

>>32076851
>then technology happened
The M14 was outdated before the first one ever rolled off of the assembly line. The AK47 was the end of battle rifles.

>>32080665
The FN FAL is in the same league as the M14, though.

>Same cartridge
>Same magazine capacity
>Both have long-radius aperture sights
>Similar weight (maybe M14 is a little bit heavier, but whatever)

Yeah the FAL would have been neat for parts commonality, but I don't see it as being all THAT much of a boon.

>FAL has non-reciprocating charging handle on the left, M14 has reciprocating charging handle on the right
Meh
>FAL uses short-stroke gas piston as I recall. M14 has long-stroke
Meh
>Rotating bolt vs tilting bolt, right?
Meh

Functionally, aside from possibly the aspect of weight, I really don't see any noteworthy advantages when comparing the FAL to the M14. Yeah it would have been good to be using what most of Nato ended up using, but I see no particular issue or drawback in using the M14. If the US kept the M14 as their standard issue rifle until the 70s-80s, I wouldn't see them as being behind the nations who adopted the FAL.

>>32078696
the only semi auto imbel makes is the fal

>>32080682
Modern rifle (as opposed to garand style) ergos and the presence of a bolt release. The bolt release admittedly wouldn't have mattered upon adoption, but would have come into its own once armies moved toward the modern procedure of reloading, a la AR.

>>32078502
>Some local militias in Cambodia or somewhere still use it

LOOK GUISE IT MUST BE A GOOD RIFLE! IT'S STILL IN SERVICE!

>>32080636
So whupdie doo. That's still less ammo you can carry than 5.56 or 5.45. Accuracy in combat at range goes to dogs hit. What soldiers need is more ammo so that they are more likely to hit their targets eventually. Also performance outside 500 yards is pretty much meaningless. Had you provided some sort of lmg chambered in 280 limey I'd be more impressed, ut it doesn't do anything that those 6.x clown calibers are doing right now, yet I see no mass rush to replace ANYTHING country's small arms with weapons chambered in them

>>32080727
So far you have...
>M14 lacks a pistol grip

Wasn't the button on the left side of the receiver (used as the clip-release button for the M1 Rifle) used as a bolt release on the M14, or was it a bolt hold-open so as to reload with clips? As for 'modern procedure of reloading' and 'needing a bolt release', AK is still doing well in modern day use. Forget the Middle East; look to the well-trained troops of Russia, including the Spetsnaz. Do you really think it's going to matter to them? Do you really think it would give them a disadvantage to US troops with M4A1s and M16A4s?

The answer is 'no'.

>>32080817
>AK is still doing well in modern day use.
Adequate would be a better word
>look to the well-trained troops of Russia, including the Spetsnaz. Do you really think it's going to matter to them?
Apparently it does, since the AK12 has a bolt catch. They can undeniably reload their AKs fast, but this is a compromise. If they could reload a gun without having to unshoulder it, they surely would.
In fact, I cant think of a modern rifle (as in, from the last 15 years) that doesn't have a bolt release. Its basically a standard at this point. You could argue that this trend would never have eventuated had the AR/M16 never been adopted, but whether or not that's truly the case cant be known.
>Do you really think it would give them a disadvantage to US troops with M4A1s and M16A4s?
Not a big one, but less actions required to reload a gun means quicker reload. If you can have a quicker reload procedure with no downside, I don't know why you wouldn't.

>>32080773
didnt say it was better than 5.56mm, but it sure as hell was better for the stated purpose than 7.62x51

>>32080902
We'll yeah it was an intermediate after all, but everyone jerky off to it like it would have been the best choice possible

>>32080965
>>32080965
>We'll yeah it was an intermediate after all, but everyone jerky off to it like it would have been the best choice possible

in 1950 when it was rejected on extremely spurious grounds by the US military it was the best choice possible.

in the years since better choices have become available, but at the time it was rejected there was no better round available

File: 1476843048397.png (230KB, 951x770px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 951x770px

>>32080761
It's a pretty nice rifle man

>>32080773
Those "6.x clown calibers" are undeniably better than 5.56.

The reason there's no rush to adopt them is that they're not better enough to justify the billions it would cost.

>>32080773
the LMG chambered in .280 british was the taden gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taden_gun

the .280 was meant to replace the .303 across the board, certainly in LMGs, rifles and GPMGs

>>32077330
>ceremonial swaggersticks
>being used

>>32077088
>>32077070
>>32077051
>>32076899
>>32076867
Does anyone have a link to the hitch report?

>>32080895
The AK is far more than adequate.

Bolt release is not a new concept. It's essentially a slide-stop like on a pistol, but put onto a rifle. It's convenient. It's like a loaded chamber indicator, or a decocker when the hammer is exposed; is it necessary? No; it's just nice to have, and so if it can be put onto a new design, then it typically is. Whether the AR/M16 had a bolt release or not, it would have come about eventually anyways just like the slide stop/slide release came out on pistols.

With the AK as it is, fast reloads are quite possible, as you've said. The design had proven itself time and time again for over half a century, all while being quite light (as far as AKM and AK-74 is concerned; AK-47 is rather heavy), and unbelievably affordable to manufacture, as well as so legendarily reliable that cleaning is ALMOST optional (unless of course you're shooting corrosive surplus, which most AKs typically often do, in which case neglecting to clean will come to bite you in the ass eventually). The AKM was about as accurate as assault rifles needed to be (100-300m was the average distance of combat in WWII, and that's definitely doable for an AK-47 or AKM), but the AK-74 brought it up into about the same league (or damn near close to) the future M4/M4A1. The M16 has the advantage of even more velocity, MUCH longer sight radius, longer barrel, and what not. Still, the AK-74 is undeniably quite accurate, so in the face of M4s, it's very much in level ground. Lacking a bolt release is negligible, having one is a nifty feature to have but not a necessity, speed reloads are fun to perform, but not an actual advantage in the real world. Well, unless you're perhaps comparing a muzzle loader to a modern assault rifle. Even bolt actions can be reloaded quite quickly with practice, in fact I can fill up an empty Lee Enfield with two clips in less than 5 seconds. 1 clip takes even less time, perhaps 3 seconds. Reload times haven't changed much over the century.

>>32081044
>The TADEN and EM-2 projects were discontinued when the United States Army refused to consider the .280 cartridge for the new NATO standard on the basis that it was less powerful than their .30-06 Springfield
>so we adopted 5.56 and still use 7.62

Kek

>>32080672
Also M1917 had a 6-round internal magazine and I dunno about you, but I can jam a 7th round in the chamber with mine. 2 rounds doesn't sound like much, but in 1917, 7 rounds over 5 rounds was like fucking magic. The front sight protecting ears also saved the front sight post from the stupid bullshit the M1903 always lost its zero for.

The M1917 was superior to the M1903 in like every aspect.

>>32081158
Yeah, I can manage 6+1 as well, and my Kar98k could just BARELY manage 5+1 as long as the top round in the mag was pulled back as far as I could get it and pushed down to let the bolt slide over. The downside to either 6+1 or 5+1 though is that I find working the bolt after that first shot to be quite stiff, so getting your second round chambered will take a little longer than normal, but then you're back to normal. My 1915 Mk.III* can also just BARELY manage 11+1. Yeah, 12 rounds in a standard-issue WWI rifle. If you think capacity is magic, you won't beat a Lee Enfield, though I find most Lee Enfields can't manage that 11+1 thing. Normally 10+1 at max, but I just stick to 9+1 because 10 rounds is still awesome as is and I like my Lee bolt to be as fast/smooth as possible.

The M1917 was cheaper to produce than the M1903 as I recall, and I DEFINITELY find its rear sight to be better than the M1903A1's. HOW many rear sights did it have, like 4-5? Fuck that shit. The main downfalls of the M1917 is that it was heavier, and well, I don't know how an M1903's bolt comes apart, but that disc in the Kar98k's stock makes bolt disassembly easy as Hell. The M1917 is not quite so easy, and simply using a penny to keep the cocking piece in place makes me feel anxious.

While I've never handled a P14 before, I think I would prefer it over the M1917, in spite of having just 5 round capacity. Shorter bolt throw, and the shorter 7.7x56r cartridge (as apposed to 7.62x63 for .30-06) also means the internal mag can be shorter, the receiver can be shorter, and the bolt/firing pin/firing pin spring can be shorter, which would surely make the firearm at least a LITTLE lighter not to mention a little faster to get follow up shots with. Still, Lee bolt is God-tier for bolt speed/smoothness.

>>32081112
>United States Army refused to consider the .280 cartridge for the new NATO standard on the basis that it was less powerful than their .30-06 Springfield

which is really stupid when you think about it, the design brief specifically called for a cartridge less powerful than the .30-06 and other full power rifle cartridges, thats a huge part of the idea behind intermediate cartridges

>>32076839
M1A is the worst cold war era nato battle rifle lol

>>32077330
Why is the M9 still being used, for that matter? Or even 8-inch-high combat boots? The army uses things that are in inventory because it's cheaper than buying new stuff, not because it's effective.

File: m14gas_f.jpg (48KB, 508x271px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 508x271px

>>32080682
M14 uses a short stroke self regulating piston

>>32081379
Oh, well then, fancy that. Learn something new every day. Thanks, OP!

>>32080638
The SIG 550 is just a derivate of the 540 which started foreign licence production in 1977. Field trials and last changes were made in 89. Even though the Waffenfabrik Bern had a way better design (C42) and a better caliber (6.5), the retard ordonnance officer went full retard and chose the SIG against all advice so it was officialy adopted in 90 giving the rifle the designation Stgw 90. Since the early 2000 however QC of parts was non existant as today they just have 12-14 workers left, leading me to curse every single time i have to switch the diopter adjustment screw because they are bent as fuck. FUCK YOU FUCKING NIGGERS!

File: Capture.png (96KB, 558x494px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 558x494px

>>32076839
Yikes, even the INSAS lasted longer.

>>32078502
>'59-'64

fucking KEK

>>32081425
What's wrong with the INSAS? Legit question, I genuinely don't know much of anything about it. Based on the dust cover, I'm guessing it's an AK variant of sorts? I like the camo, though. Looks cool.

>>32076918
I wonder how your grandpa would like a CAR15 in the mountains of Afghanistan?

>>32081877
Worst QC ever. Rivets applied practically randomly. Many don't really work at all.

>>32080617
>it's a ".280 British proponents either unknowingly or dishonestly conflate its early loadings and its late higher-velocity, .280/.30 loadings to claim that it was a wonder-cartridge when it was not" episode

>>32081920
even with its earliest loadings it was a better choice than the 7.62x51 for a intermediate cartridge

largely because it was actually a intermediate cartridge

>>32081937
It's early loadings are basically Soviet M43 with better wind drift. It's unsuitable for the machinegun role that it was also intended for.

>>32078696

Why do AR-15 fags try so hard and get so buttblasted over the M1A?

But of course when I am bringing down elk at 500 yards on ironsights, why would I think about the AR at all.

>>32082046

Immediately assuming that the post you highlighted was written by an AR-15 fag and then taking the time to brag about your own gun shows that you think about the AR-15 a lot, actually. Perhaps even more than you realize.

>>32078738
>Based heavily off the Garand
You mean directly converted from the Garand? Because that's what the BM-59 is. A modified Garand that uses 7.62 NATO and accepts 20 round magazines.

>>32080638
You forgot about the CEAM 50 in .30 carbine that was refined but then the French got stuck in Indochina and were too busy hauling ass to replace their rifles and submachine guns with the CEAM.

>>32081877
It's a bastard child of an FAL and an AK.

>>32082243
Neat, if the QC wasn't evidently so miserable, perhaps it'd be a good rifle, though I imagine it'd be rather heavy if it's combining aspects of both. The AKM isn't bad, but the FAL... yikes. 9lb unloaded, is it?

>>32081059
Anyone?

>>32080761
That's US use, fuckwit.

>>32077330
>repurposed to different role
>"""used"""

>>32076839
Not really a failure, its just doctrine change when they wanted to use smaller caliber than the .308.

File: 1439522123202.jpg (19KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 250x250px

>>32076891
>My neighbor served in Nam. Was super pissed when they took his away and gave him a shitty jamming m16. Said his life was hell until he killed a charlie and took his AK
Things that never happen.

>>32082046

>bringing down elk at 500 yards on ironsights

Why do you feel the need to anonymously lie on the internet?

>>32078803
To be fair, they mainly use them as a stop gap because procuring another rifle that hadn't been thuroughly tested was way more expensive than just updating the m14's they still had a ton of. And although the memesters would have you believe they are video game AK inaccurate, the reality is they are not excellent but accurate enough for the job (average about 1.5 moa)

>>32076891
one of the teachers at my school fought in vietnam war. he said the m14 was to heavy

>>32083152
It does sound farfetched, but personally, I love the thought of getting a 'battlefield pick-up'. I doubt the superiors would tolerate a soldier going around with an AKM along with their standard-issue rifle and CERTAINLY wouldn't fucking tolerate them abandoning/losing their fucking standard-issue rifle. So yeah, it's probably bullshit, or if it happened, he picked it up and used it for a couple mags before leaving it behind. The XM16s jammed like mad though.

>>32081334
What's wrong with 8in boots

>>32083099
>ceremonial
>use

Settle this one and for all

>never heard of m14's jamming and getting their men killed

>>32078081
>pay royalties to the country you are at war with
What? Why would someone even do something like that?

>>32084537
They didn't.

>>32076891


>CAST FOREIGN RECEIVER FOR 1700 DOLLARS

yeah, nice all american gun you got there, retard

>>32079002

>Where it's seen success is how well liked and preferred it was to its replacement. In Vietnam, they were preferred heavily over the M16A1. It was accurate, powerful and durable. Carrying it gave a soldier a better sense of confidence than the M-16.

lmao at this nonguns obvious underage faggot making trash up

kill yourself retard

>>32083099
>several thousands of dollars of accurizing work
>still in use

Nigger, please.

>>32077174
You posted an FAL instead of the G3

File: IMG_6589.jpg (13KB, 300x196px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x196px

No opinion on the M14, but clearly Op has never heard of the Krag.

>approved by generals that felt a soldier should use less ammo and was designed to ensure that.

File: baleebit.png (79KB, 569x563px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 569x563px

>>32079002
>In Vietnam, they were preferred heavily over the M16A1.
Come on, dude.

>>32081099
Well memed

>>32081903
Probably about as well as soldiers like the M4. A lot.

File: G3 cap.png (46KB, 312x350px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 312x350px

Excuse me faggots. Best Battle Rifle coming through.

>>32085447
Not really what the thread is about.

>>32085447
Battle rifles were a mistake.

>>32085447
It's the premium nigger killer of Battle Rifles, Moortugal a best.

>>32081059
>>32082776
I guess it really was a hoax.

>>32085612
Actually, I have to agree. Giving a rifle that fires full sized rifle rounds a full-retard switch was stupid as shit. The Russians had an assault rifle by the late 40s, perfected it in the late 50s, and the Czechs came out with an arguably better design before it was perfected. It would have made more sense for America to adopt the M2 Carbine as standard issue rather than make the M14 standard issue. Nothing against the M14, it was on par for the time since most of Nato were adopting battle rifles, but it's obvious that the world ultimately went with assault rifles. The M2 Carbine doesn't even qualify as an assault rifle, it's basically a God-tier SMG (provided you don't mind the huge 18" barrel), but it can still reach 300m and wouldn't have involved designing and manufacturing a whole new rifle before adopting the M16.

Imagine if they DIDN'T make the M14. Imagine if they seen that it would have been better off to just stick with a semi-auto-only rifle, and decided to just keep the M1 Rifle for things like DMR. Start manufacturing those in 7.62 Nato in FAR smaller numbers than WWII with much higher QC to make sure every one coming out of the factory is higher quality than those of the war (not that they were low quality, but just make sure they're more accurate), and so instead of the M21 DMR as we know it today, it could have been a tacticool 7.62 Nato M1 Rifle. Still pinging after 80 years. It's faster to reload with that 8-rnd en bloc clip than it is to reload with a mag. Granted, not fast enough to allow an M1 to outshoot an M14 or M21 with sustained fire, not lagging behind enough to suggest that it's a bad idea.

Hell, who knows, maybe if they really did intend to completely replace the M1 Rifle with a 7.62 Nato variant and adopt the M2 Carbine as standard issue instead, then they would have also made this 7.62 Nato M1 (let's just call it M2 Rifle or M2 Garand) have a 10-rnd clip. Faster reloads, lighter ammo, and only half the capacity? I like it

Wouldn't a better standard have been a 6.5 Grendel-like cartridge for almost all infantry use and a big nasty ass cartridge in the 8 to 8.5mm range for machine guns and sniper rifles?
6.5mm for a squad automatic weapon and DMR would do, while a 8.5mmish crew served MG would have fantastic range and anti-material capabilities.

That said, 5.56 and 5.45 are also superb cartridges. I mainly don't understand why .30 cals are so popular as they don't seem to do anything particularly well.

>>32082336
She's a heavy girl alright, weighing about 9 lbs. unloaded. She originally had a three round burst, semi and safe feature, but had undergo three modification programs for her quality control issue (And a lot of government cover up and shilling). She now has full automatic features, and underwent some modernization and polishing. It's an interesting rifle personally but badly implemented

>>32091026
So... a semi auto only BM-59?

>>32091026
Full sized rifle rounds for any standard issue rifle ever was a mistake.

We don't fight wars at 500 yards. Never have. But because we converted some BP cartridges directly to smokeless we leapfrogged past where we should have ended up, and had to wait 50 years to correct it.

>>32091117
6mm Grendel makes more sense

>>32091270
Hah, well then, kind of I guess, but I was thinking that they could stick with the en bloc clips. Makes ammo lighter, easier to carry (due to being less bulky), cheaper, and since it's semi-auto-only and likely only meant for DMR use in this hypothetical non-M14 situation, having detachable mags or higher capacity isn't really all that necessary. I mean, the SVD-63 is doing great, and it only has a 10-round mag.

>>32091638
Yeah, some countries were already working on it in the late 1800s or early 1900s, but for one reason or another it didn't catch on. 6.5 Arisaka is basically just a longer version of 6.5 Grendel. If not for the bullet weight over 150gr, 6.5 Carcano might be able to qualify as an intermediate cartridge as well. 6.5x55 is too hot though.

>>32077009
>>32078081
>>32084537
>>32084729
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3UN4gLLPPc

>>32080002
we can only dream anon ... sadly

>>32076867
Inaccurate? It is literally still used as a dmr...

>>32092158
Literally isn't. Not since ~2009

>>32092166
>Literally isn't. Not since ~2009

Does that even make a difference?

>>32092848
>Standard Issue for less than 10 years
>Used as a DMR for 40 years
>hated as a DMR rifle due to difficulties of keeping zero
>hated as a standard issue because full auto .308

The gun has been mediocre in every job its been chosen to do. Its a great gun to shoot on the weekend but its a pretty poor military rifle.

It's a shame that all of the major battle rifles available (other than AR-10 variants) cost out the ass to make sub-MOA accurate. I like how my M1A feels, but the fucker is heavy.

>>32076839
It was actually still somewhat standard issue until 1970.

>>32081334
> Or even 8-inch-high combat boots
Confirmed shoftshoe profilefag

>>32082046
> bringing down elk at 500 yards on ironsights
I shoot expert and I still miss the 300m sometimes. Stop lying.

>>32093011
Those were combat engineers that were still issued them, not grunts.

>>32076918
My grandpa said he knew that guy. They used to call him bottom buckwheat. Something to do with laying face down in the bro's tents.

File: 6mmSAW.jpg (13KB, 350x480px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 350x480px

>>32091117
They had a good idea in the 70s, but they decided they didn't want to adopt a third caliber, even though the original goal was to come up with a caliber that could replace most 5.56 and 7.62 weapons.

Krag, 9 years of service and out forever, while the M14 has seen continuous service as marksmen rifle since then.

>>32084874
>Said the H&K fanboy, who prayed that nobody would call him out on his bullshit

>>32078789
Rails look pig disgusting anyways.

File: TOTALLY_NOT_A_MAUSER.png (399KB, 782x356px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 782x356px

>>32077009
It was such a blatant ripoff

File: TFW you are the superior officer.jpg (39KB, 600x407px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x407px

>>32083660
>I doubt the superiors would tolerate a soldier going around with an AKM

But...m-muh trophies...

>>32082046
> I am bringing down elk at 500 yards on ironsights
That's neat, how do you reliably nail the killzone when your post is completely obscuring the entire goddamned elk? Do you just pray that you hit the heart/lungs and go from there?