Why does /k/ absolutely loathe the M14 and civilian variants?

>>33318714
Go use one and find out.

>>33318726
I have, its accurate and never jammed albeit a little heavy

>>33318714
Manlets. K is full of manlets.

>>33318714
AR15 fags have to decry literally anything that threatens their feelings as the AR being number one.

See:

>Hating AK
>Hating M14
>Hating any sort of Piston AR since muh DI
>Hating full sized rifle cartridges
>Hating bullpups

File: Sn3xfay.png (112KB, 688x1434px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 688x1434px

>>33318714

>>33318924
how short do you have to be to be too short for an M1? I'm 6'1" and I'm bordering on scrunching up on the rifle because of how short the stock is.

>>33318714
http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/
Because it's mediocre at everything it tried to do.

>>33318968
Jesus that level of projection...

>>33318968
>They don't want to spend $1400 on a rifle, they want to spend $1400 on accessories, toys for their toys.

Couldnt sum up /arg/ any better

You can buy or build an AR-10 these days for cheaper that'll be superior in every way.

The M1A is a kickass gun, it's just not worth the price premium unless you care about a e s t h e t I c s

The average, standard-issue M14 wasn't particularly accurate, the mechanical accuracy is about the same as the average AK, though the far superior sights do improve the practical accuracy compared to the average AK. The gun is heavy, the ammo is heavy and it's generally just not the best thing ever.

>>33318955
>piston AR
>interchangeability of bolt carrier and piston system non existant
>heavier up front
>A good DI will go more than you'll probably ever shoot without cleaning before jamming
>adds a few hundred dollars to the price tag.
Not that most people here would ever shoot enough that they go the thousands of rounds DI can go without malfunctions without cleaning them, let alone for a piston system to jam. It's just hard to justify, the REAL selling point is that if you DO shoot enough that you need to replace something in the gas system, the DI guns are standardized and cheap with a massive economy of scale to boot. It would cost just $20 to replace a gas tube and just $160 to replace a completed bolt carrier with something fancy looking as opposed to a standard Mang phosphate bolt carrier that'll do just about everyone just fine.The piston systems are all proprietary which means if the maker goes under and you need to replace a piston or bolt carrier, it's second hand or get fucked with a higher premium of price.
>inb4 poor fag I have an M1A and two DI ar-15's.
One a pimpdaddy LWRCI I6 with an ACOG and a nothing special Del-ton with a primary arms optic I'm testing, previously having had a carry handle. I've shot a couple thousand through the both of them and have had no malfunctions.

The M14, just like the Garand, is an outdated tool that has been superseded by better machines. I know that some people here get defensive about the things they own (or wish they could own), but it is not a good platform. Just look into how much effort was put into unfucking it and making it an accurate rifle.

File: image.png (2MB, 1920x894px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x894px

>>33318967
Tiny people can carry a m14 if they aren't bitches about it. As with everything, you get used to it.

>>33319170
Is this a new meme now?

File: image.png (154KB, 374x321px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 374x321px

>>33318968

>>33319207
It's not a meme, it's the truth. You know what "truth" is, right?

>>33319207
No >>33319170 is right just look at >>33318996 the M14 has been outdated since it entered service.

>>33318714
I don't dislike the m14 or the derivatives thereof. They aren't optimal for what I ask a rifle to do, but that doesn't make them bad rifles.

The people who condemn any firearm instead of just owning up to having preferences are without exception newfags and noguns who put way too much stake into isolated examples which deserve to be taken with a grain of salt (ie. MAC reliability tests, RangeTime sand and mud tests, etc.)

>>33318955
>AR15 fags have to decry literally anything that threatens their feelings as the AR being number one.

See:
>>33319133

>>33319019
But /arg/ are some of the fiercest advocates for buying quality components and telling people buying bottom-barrel uppers and lowers that they'd get what they pay for. They only kind of tenatively recommend the MnP Sport under the caveat that it's "good for it's price" (which should be read as not that good).

>>33319170
this seems to be the issue - I think all of /k/ is still pretty salty about not getting American FALs too.

>>33318714
Its an inherently inaccurate platform that cannot easily mount an optic. Current Springfield Armory M1As have quality control issues and soft, flexible synthetic stocks that reduce accuracy. They're expensive, they dont do anything particularly well, and they're finicky. They're also pretty cool. I have an M1 Garand and an M1A.

File: Arkangel.jpg (2MB, 2334x3500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2334x3500px

>>33318968
This is some spicy new pasta.

>>33318714
My father went through basic training with an M14 before being sent to Vietnam. He had two complaints with it.

His first is that it was heavy. Hauling it around the range and doing drills with it was tolerable, but he couldn't imagine hauling that thing around the jungle with a full combat load. Some big guys did choose to carry one in the field, but he was happy with his CAR. It's important to consider he was in light infantry, so aside from helicopter insertions, everywhere he went he had to walk, which means every bit of weight is acutely felt.

The second problem was that, despite it's weight, it was completely uncontrollable in full auto. Outside of being ordered to use full auto in basic training, he never encountered anyone willingly using it's full auto feature. Firing an M14 in full auto was considered a complete waste of ammunition.

Aside from that he said it was a fine rifle. The people who could handle the weight swore by them, and 7.62 NATO could tear ass through foliage like 5.56 never could.

>>33319288
what the fuck is up with that picture?

File: Raifus.jpg (3MB, 2952x5248px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2952x5248px

expensive, heavy, and hard to make accurate

I really like my GI build, the other one was an attempt to scratch an autistic .308 bullpup itch.

I'd sell it but the stock and gun combo is hard to move and I don't think could sell the stock separately at a decent price.

It's a nice bench queen, it's just not the rifle I wanted it to be.

>>33319500
It was an art project for promoting anti-knife stuff in the UK.

Naturally, /k/ has co-opted it into as the Ar/k/ Angel.

File: 523894_v1.gif (2MB, 450x532px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x532px

I rented an M1A at a range. It was heavy and the sights were kind of awkward but it shot fine. I much preferred the PTR91 I rented though. It was just much more comfortable to shoot standing up

>tfw can't afford a battle rifle and would have nowhere to shoot it even if I did save up for one.

File: boat-anchor-736693_640[1].jpg (137KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 640x480px

>here is your new rifle Spc.
>you're the squad's DM

File: Screenshot+2013-11-13+at+8.12.58+PM.png (359KB, 633x467px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 633x467px

>>33319288
James Bond should throw a bad guy onto that thing and deliver some one liner like "knife to see you m8" too bad the brits have gone full cuck and don't do cool stuff like that any more.

File: image.jpg (19KB, 154x115px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 154x115px

>>33319701
>t-thanks

>>33319701

Sig makes M14s?

I see I'm late to the daily shit on the M14 thread

dae think the m14 is stupid because its not a scar?

>>33319792
M14's bore axis isn't high enough to be a Sig.

and have a m14 in a commo squad. means you get abandoned on top of a mountain for half of the deployment. Because you can protect the retrans site with it.

>>33319268
actually FAL fag. Not really decrying it, just saying it's not a mandatory item, and why I think so, but sure, decrying ANYTHING that threatens my precious AR-15 because you know... But seriously, it's cheaper to use DI and it's generally not going to get to the point of needed any replacement.

>>33318714
>Its basically a M1 with a redesigned gas system
Didn't redesign it where it counted.

>>33319744
/k/iwi detected

>>33318968
>hurr durr /k/ is children

I own a Garand, FAL and a PTR91, a SCAR 17S is in my future.

I love battle rifles, but the M14 is too expensive for what it is and underperforms at it's price point.

That said if I ever come across a $900 Norinco M14 you bet your ass I'd pick it up.

IMO first manufacturer who can cheapen cost an make M14's sub 1k will watch their sales explode

>>33318726
Mine is accurate as fuck never had a problem with it.

>>33319958
This, if you ever look at an M1, M14 or a Mini 14 even you will see a 1 inch gap behind the receiver. If sand or god forbid a rock gets in there you need to do a full disassembly.

File: norincos under 1k.png (177KB, 953x725px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 953x725px

>>33320206
where do you live that you cant buy norinco M14 under $900?

>>33319573
>hard to make accurate

Absolute bull shit

>>33320290
Hmmmm, the United Fucking States? Or are you unaware of the NORINCO BAN?

The Garand was viable until 1960. The M14 wast viable until 1965 and wasnt even fully in service in 60'

The M14 was 15+ years late to the party and is beaten handily by FN49's and ljungmans, not to mention newer rifles.
But what do you expect, It somehow magically beat the FAL in cold weather testing so USA adopted it

>>33320206
this. its a $1000 rifle, not a $1600 rifle.

>>33320338
I am aware, just nice to rub it in, its about the only thing we can get that you cant.

File: sunday 5.jpg (142KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1080x1080px

They cost a lot of money and they're not that accurate even for a semi-auto. You need to tinker with them, spend money on match grade parts, loving handload 168gr boat tail hallow points, and even then you will probably get around 1.5 moa.

However if you're lucky/unlucky enough to be a fucking leaf you can buy a chink clone for about $600 in Canadian tire money. I love my M14 but if I had to pay burger prices for it then I would have put it towards a really nice bolt gun or AR.

File: LQtGrrk.jpg (2MB, 7068x4780px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7068x4780px

>>33320338
road trip canada!

>>33320323
>>hard to make accurate
>Absolute bull shit
the officer in charge of the Marine Corp's Precision Weapons Shop says otherwise
http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/
>Remember that the US Army struggled for more than twenty years to transform the M14 into a sniper type weapon. The Army finally abandoned all attempts to salvage the M14 rifle. Continued use of the M14 as anything other than a drill rifle is better described as DISASTER. ( emphasis Chandler’s). The M14 is old, and has never been more than a modified M1 Garand. “
>“Unfortunately the M14 rifle is costly to modify and modification requires many man hours of skilled labor. In the field the m14 cannot maintain accuracy. The Army refused to admit that they could not solve the M14’s accuracy problems and wasted two decades attempting to make a silk purse from an old infantry rifle. Milspec spare parts are no longer made and those that can be found are often inferior, and ill fitting. “
>The M14 is a bitch to keep in tune, and a untuned M14, no matter who did the accurizing is about as accurate as a thrown rock . Unless the M14 is continually babied it will not retain accuracy.
>

The Springfield Armory ones are dodgy. I would never buy either of the 16" models at even half of what those cocksuckers charge, the """loaded""" and national match are similarly outlandishly priced. The Scout Squad is the one that is kind of worthwhile because it suffers from none of the 16" problems (they seriously suck) but still offers something other than the full size monstrosities. Lots of rifles ahead of it on my wishlist, but I would one day like to own a Scout Squad.

It elevates itself about the AR v AK debate because unlike both of those it is meant (though by accident) to be semi auto and thus utilizes a proper semi auto cartridge. With the M1A you aren't trying to make a military gun meant to be select fire fit into a semi auto civilian role. That said, there are very few semi autos that aren't just completely boring and I guess the M14 could be a part of that group just because of its relation to the M1 (literally proof that god loves us) and sordid service history.

Really the one thing it does very poorly is the safety which is inexplicably located inside the trigger guard.

>>33320431
No. Its value is sub 1k. 800 - high nines

For a comparison I consider the PTR91 to be a better value than its actual cost. You get all the military features (Metal lower, Paddle mag) save for the bayo lug ($15 bucks screws right in) in a package that will shoot 2 MOA with the shittiest of shitty ammo. And it loves cheap steel case

File: justice for atwood.jpg (79KB, 960x717px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x717px

>>33320469
Dude. I hope you don't forget some CMP Garands near the border because sometimes I lose a crate of SVT-40s there when bird watching.

>>33320574
i wouldnt put the value of any working semi-auto in .308 below $1000 except maybe one of those mas 49/56 converted by century.

>>33318714
Worst battle rifle

So what about the MAS 49/56 in 7.5 or (if it worked) 7.62?

Are those good battle rifles for their purpose?

Ist gud.

>>33320662
most who own them do so for collecting, not for any practical purpose like precision shooting or hunting.

>>33320623
The only M14's actually worth over 1k are JRA/HRA's, Fultons, LRB's and the very high end springfields.
The canadian Norinco's are right on the money at what a springfield should cost, and I consider the Norinco to be of higher quality than the low end Springfields - Forged Reciever, good barrel.
Hell even the US norincos from the 80's-90's only needed a GI bolt, GI Flash hider and oprod to run well.
Fulton even made a killing converting them to GI parts, and you can see it today some of the best M14's out there in civilian hands in the US have Norinco recievers

>>33320678
My arms and back just hurt looking at that.
Give me a M240L instead pls

>>33320435
>day_of_the_rake.png

>>33321095
not canada.

>>33318726
no guns detected, maybe a nugget at most and thinks hes operator

File: nautilus.jpg (470KB, 1215x717px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1215x717px

>>33319701
DRAG THEM DOWN

>>33318714
The problem (from what I can squeeze from shit) IS the gas system, and also the shortened cartridge.

Having a piston and a longer distance to decelerate helped cull any problems with reciever stretching and degrading accuracy.

They should've kept either 30.06 (fuckinf stupid) or kept the gas piston (ehhhh, slightly less stupid) or gone with something that was designed specifically to accommodate shorter cartridges easily (the FAL)

But they were cheap and wanted to retool the same machines that they already had easily.
So fuck working right and being accurate without treating it like royalty.

Anyways, the gun was a battle rifle and kinda functioned fine as one of standards were kept fine.

I will point out that it's gotten hyped as being THE SHIT for so long that people expect absolute amazingness and when they see it for what it is (not tactical, not ultra durable, not ultra bleedingly accurate, and most definitely not modern) then they seem to get pissed that they blew a shitload of cash on a safe queen, and rightfully so.
But if you want an M14 by all means get one (they're sexy as fuck) but be prepared for it to be less than superb without obscene upkeep.

And always remember: Garands are cheaper, more fun, have fewer problems, and frankly are sexier.

File: LOL 1.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>33322011
lol.

Sure bud.

I dunno OP, the M14 has always just really clicked with me. I'll admit it's decently open action but I just have great luck with it.

>>33320515
Have you ever shot a AR or AK variant full auto? Bc if you have you would know that, while incredibly boner inducing, it's not great in the way of accurate, controlled fire. Even the M4 at burst is still wonky at best. Most guys never really use it. There are scenarios where it's useful but the whole "ARs were meant to be full auto" thing is garbage. You want suppression you go with a LMG or some crew served weapon.
tldr ~ full auto is meme

>>33318968
This.

>>33319276
kek
/arg/ is just full of tripfags with insane inferiority complexes, some of whom actually advocate spending more on identical-in-quality-components simply for rollmarks or brand names

>>33322329
I think the whole point of the 5.56 is that its meant to be an economical round to use for suppress. As opposed to the .308 which not only disagrees with full auto but also would be much more costly to use in that role than 5.56.

If accuracy and control were what mattered to the military they would be using 7.62NATO not 5.56 to begin with.

>>33322200
that couch is more ugly than an obese mexican's taint.

>>33322464
the ladies and the puppy likes it.

Haters gonna hate.

>>33318968
This is a good diagnosis but I'm afraid the Springfield M1A is hardly the correct prescription. Paying $1600 for a poorly made rifle that will rattle itself to SKS-level accuracy after 1000 rounds with obsessive TLC is not going to show the mall ninjas the light.

A quality civilian M14 is going to cost a shitload of money in the USA, and because Norinco's are banned the "cheap" variant is Springfield's shitheap priced at an insulting MSRP. Really the correct answer to it all are CMP M1's but fudd hoarders have irreparably fucked up the market on them so even that is out.

>>33318714
There was some murmurs about it being subpar for years, often propagated by AR-15 fanboys. As this poster indicates:
>>33318955
Then, Ian and Karl started doing their mud tests and the M1A failed horribly in both mud and sand tests.

They have since made it clear that those tests are not a real metric of how reliable these weapons are, but rather deal with a very specific "worst case" scenario of it being virtually submerged in a mudhole. Not unprecedented in the history of combat, but not a constant occurrence either.

Never the less, this has been a (shaky) basis for vehement, seething, blind hatred of the M14, Garand and any similar platform. Either that or at least a meme that they are totally unreliable, inaccurate and hopelessly useless in all but the most hermetically clean circumstances and with autistic levels of routine fine tuning (which ironically used to be said about the AR-15).
>>33318726
Like this faggot, who has never shot one.
Pepole take the "Garand sucks" meme at face value until they actually shoot a Mini-14/M1A/Garand. They aren't the best, but they actually work function well and hit what they're aimed at for the most part.
>>33318924
>>33318967
The controls are actually pretty easy to reach so you can be pretty small and use it. LOP tend to be medium, but there are tricks to tweak it. Weight varies, but can be as light as 7 lbs (plastic stock/thinner USGI profile barrel) even with a full length 22" rifle.
>>33318968
I disagree. An AR-15 is still very good, it just does things differently and now that you can build one for under $500 it's unbeatable value.
>>33318996
That gets posted every time and speaks to early adoption and production issues. It wasn't in service long enough for them to be fully worked out. Moreover the choice to drop it had less to do with deficiencies in the platform per se and more to do with a long overdue shift in doctrine. The M16, as we know, went through significant teething problems as well.

>>33322200
>that Osprey/X400 combo
Unf

>>33319019
Welp, it's easier to pay $1,400 piecemeal than lump sum. Even then once you get an M1A (or other M14gery) you still have to get magazines and ammunition, both significantly more expensive than AR-15 equivalents.

Certainly, form a civilian user and to lesser extent government perspective the economics vastly favor the AR-15 and intermediate cartridges as a whole. Part of the reason why the M16 eclipsed the M14 in the first place.
>>33319020
Also ergonomics, but that can swing both ways. I've owned an AR-10 and I vastly prefer my M1A. The AR-10 is more accurate, I find the M1A is easier to shoot offhand with reasonable accuracy. I suppose that might be different depending on the user, but it is the case for me, which is why I prefer it. It just fits me. I found the Mini-14 fit me far better than the AR-15 fits as well.
>>33319059
>Only as accurate as an AK.
OK that's just a exaggeration and you know it, unless you're comparing it to an RK-95.
>>33319133
In my experience I've had and seen numerous and sometimes significant stoppages on AR-15s, that have been more crucially far more difficult to clear.
This is from years of running thousands of rounds of mixed brass and steel out of several Mini-14s, 2 M1As (one of which was a notoriously crappy Federal Ordnance model) and 3 different AR builds.

I admit my AR builds have been poor representations since they have all been cheap hodgepodges, but the consistent issue has been that when issues occurred they were phenomenally hard to clear since there would be misfeeds or loose brass jammed inside the enclosed receiver, the charging handle lacked adequate connection to the bolt carrier and it would be impossible to shotgun the upper open with the bolt not fully closed.

Similar jams on the M1As and Mini-14s either didn't happen because they had nothing to hang up on (due to the open action) or could be cleared very easily.

File: VP9Tac and Osprey45.jpg (442KB, 1986x650px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1986x650px

>>33322810
just for you, homie.

Img corrected for orientation.

File: AllPistols.jpg (2MB, 4032x2765px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x2765px

>>33322810
>>33322946
Some more pistols

>>33318714
>Its basically a M1 with a redesigned gas system and detachable mag

Winchester done it better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RfcZHca8gw
Evidence that the M14 trials were rigged.

>>33319170
M1As come out of the box just as if not more accurate than comparable G3s and FALs. Upgrading any of those three gets very expensive, difficult and tricky.

Biggest thing the AR did right was locking the bolt to a barrel extension with many lugs. This means simple, repeatable accuracy, lighter weight and much cheaper manufacturing because the receiver is no longer a load bearing component. All modern "new" designs take advantage of this evolutionary step, so you're right. The M14 is obsolete, but so is the AK, FAL, G3, etc.

That doesn't mean they are bad or worthless. They still have plenty of value to the average shooter, especially civilian. They don't have to be the best to be good or enjoyable to shoot.
>>33319397
This is an absolutely accurate assessment pointing to two of the doctrinal reasons of why the M14 was replaced by the M16.
>>33319573
Yeah with the M1A it's much smarter to just keep it to the basic USGI layout and enjoy it for what it is. It does that job well. Trying to fit it into a different mold is an expensive source of frustration.
>>33320281
Sand won't do anything unless it's a lot of sand. I've shot mine in very sandy/dusty environments. A rock maybe, but it would have to be just the right size. For what it's worth, if that does happen getting the trigger group out is very easy.
>>33320431
>>33320574
Depends how you see it. I like the ergos, but the most I've paid is $1,300 for one. There's also the factor that I'm stuck in CA.

PTR-91s and AR-10s are much better value nowadays to be sure, but even if I didn't live in CA I'd keep my M1A. But since this is a personal preference, nobody is wrong in disagreeing with me.
>>33322171
>but be prepared for it to be less than superb without obscene upkeep.
You mean like running 1,500+ rounds of mostly steel cased ammunition without cleaning like I did? Something must have been wrong with mine then.

>>33319661
it is fine to have preferences

>>33319288
>artist creates sculpture to reflect on
>leftist sticks sign with propaganda

The actual answer is that its expensive, probably overpriced, and decades of fuddlore have poisoned the well with regard to its actual abilities

don't you have to rebed the M1A action or stock every time you take it apart?

>>33319701

Still better than being automatic rifleman.

>1,200 rounds 5.56 + two mortars, water, food and porn

File: image.png (2MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x1334px

>>33324637
If the porn registers on a scale you have too much porn. Maybe it's also the emotional weight.

File: IMG_1008.jpg (1MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3024x4032px

>>33320206
>not owning all 4 right now
You're willing to shell out $2500+ for a SCAR but not $1,300 for an M1A?

>>33324691
What if its on a hard drive?

It s the same result for the socom ll ?

>>33325041
He already owns a garand. Why would he need the inferior M14?

>>33318714
I just love the aesthetics of it desu

>>33318968
>k is full of children, little children, children who need the newest toys, the cheapest toys, the toys their friends have.

Maybe /arg/, but that's literally the opposite of most of /k/. If anything they should be criticized for thinking that unmodified 70 year old rifles can do everything new guns can (though I am in this category myself so I can't say much)

>>33318714
They are the absolute best battle rifle ever conceived! I have several and all shoot sub MOA! You clowns who think they are crap just don't have a clue!

>>33325870
>I bought a $4,000 civilian-spec Fulton
>This means that $650 USGI rifles weren't 4 MOA shitpiles just like the M1

>>33325884
you get what you pay for

>>33320290
Canada. More like $600-700 leafbucks which is more like $450-525 USD. At that price point the cheap chink M14's are a great toy.

>>33320338
>>33325953
bad post quoting

>>33320290
>convert the rates
>Literally in the $500-600 range
fuuuuuck

>>33325041
Honest opinion, FAL or G3 clone?

I absolutely adore the m14, i own one personally and from what iv'e heard my grandfather say, he loved using it in nam.

>>33320678
sexy n sheit tho

>>33318714
I love mine to bits.

Though to be fair if I was a burger I'd get something else because Springfield are total jews.

>>33326397
G3 clone for accuracy and cheap mags,
FAL clone for looks and if you want to be able to reload your brass(the g3's fluted chamber and highly violent action mangles brass).

the g3 did better in Ians mud test but both are fairly reliable weapons.

File: IMG_0035.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>33325307
Because a Garand isn't a Battle Rifle

>>33326397
G3 is more fun to shoot imho, I really dont care too much about accuracy in those since I have a scar. Fal is fun but the G3 is something different so I guess I would prefer it over the FAL

Because ar-10 is better in every single way.

File: Screen-329133.jpg (25KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x225px

>>33320596
>>33320469
>>33320457
>>33320338
>>33320290

We need to set up a Trailer Park Boys style train across the border to trade guns.

>>33322200
You'll note what weapon is not among these.

>>33326397
FAL, the G3 is nice and the recoil is just a light push, but the selector's in this messed up position and there aren't many G-3 clones on the market with paddle releases. The FAL has a different kind of recoil that's a bit quicker, but it's still very controllable and really the recoil being a bit more jolting doesn't really make up for the G-3's controls. To me the FAL isn't quite as smooth, but I'd rather have all the controls in the relatively right place than the selector a bit high and the charging handle all the way forward with mandatory use on reloads.

>>33322200
good taste my friend

vector when

>>33327418
Yes, because I don't like inferior firearms.

>>33327621
Vector 10mm this or next week, hopefully. I want one in white.

File: bait1.png (80KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x501px

>>33318968

So does the Garand have the same bedding problem as the M14?

>>33318968
Bravo, I'm stealing this!

>>33328741
Yes to a degree. The fact that the stock isn't screwed into the action negatively effects accuracy. I think I read that the M14's gas system makes it harder to bed too.

>>33322797
Nigga there is a big fucking hole behind the bolt where stuff goes in and fucks up the trigger assembly real bad.

M14 unreliability is not a fucking meme.

>>33329283
First of all, no one has a Springfield Armory M14. They are machine guns, & property of the US government and NOT for civilian use. While many were loaned to lay enforcement, many given to friendly military units in Vietnam, some may have made their way into civie hands in the States.

That said American made M14 and commercial market M1A are indeed reliable and as most any rifle can benefit for accurizing.

I earned a marksmanship badge, and won several long range matches (600-1000meters )with a Springfield M1A that coast me just less than $2000 all told.

You can do just fine standard of the shelf model with some simple mods. This is more of the operator or specialist ninja meme horseshit that guntards like to extol their "experience."

>>33331691
>First of all, no one has a Springfield Armory M14
Meant to say "legally!"

>>33318968
is this supposed to be haiku?

File: 1442621468784.jpg (2MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4288x2848px

>>33322797
>That gets posted every time and speaks to early adoption and production issues
didn't know the 70's and 80's were early production for the M-14. Only the begining of the atricle deals with the initial production of the M-14, the rest deals with the PWS and AMU trying to make the M-14 into something useful. The AMU has/had some of the best gunsmiths and spent two decades trying to make the M21 into something that wasn't complete garbage. Clearly you're in denial about the fact that the M-14 has always been mediocre, especially when compared to it's counterparts and should have never been adopted, the only thing it has going for it is that it looks pretty.

>>33332001
Nonsense. The accuracy(reliability) issues always centered around it's performance in full auto mode. That's it!

They tried to fix the issue with the new muzzle attachment and finally just locked out full auto mode. It's a solid built fucking tank of a rifle, America's version of the AK in a 30 caliber bullet. It was not designed as a sniper rifle accuracy but can be with little work.

The history as to why it was essentially phased out in favor of a lighter weapon, and caliber is well documented. If it was a piece of shit, it would not have been reintroduced as a DMR in Iraq/Afgh.

This is more bullshit from no-nothings wannabe operators who can barely shoot shit beyond 100 yards.

>>33318714
it doesn't have enough rails

>>33318714
The M14 is a stupid rifle for a stupid cartridge because Army Ordinance got butthurt the T48 FAL was better in every respect.

Plus the M14 lead to 7.62NATO instead of intermediate cartridges that literally everyone wanted

>>33329283
I've spent years rolling around in the desert with mud, sabd, dust and small rocks. Besides which mine has a USGI stock with a fire selector hole leading directly to the trigger group. I've never had anything get in either ingress and cause problems, then again I was also not a complete retard shoving mud and blowing sand directly into those holes on purpose.

So as long as you're not retarded the open action is a non-problem. But you may be a retard so go ahead and stick to the "hermetically sealed" AR. It's still a great rifle by it's own merits, just don't talk shit you don't know anything about.

>>33332442
>If it was a piece of shit, it would not have been reintroduced as a DMR in Iraq/Afgh.
It's not that the M14 can't be made into some DMR rifle, it's the fact that an off the shelf AR-10 can do the same while costing less and doesn't need to be gussied up and made sure the bedding doesn't get out of whack to shoot straight.

The only reason why they tried to make them into a DMR rifle is because we had millions of them in warehouses.

If it touches mud it quits working

>>33324340
>leftist
You didnt read the sign baka

>>33326987
>Garand
>not a battle rifle


wat

>>33322200
>using other peoples gun pics

>>33332734
>bedding

Or you could use a stock that doesn't require bedding, like the SAGE or JAE-100.

>>33333455
lol ok.

>>33318924
This, they even bitch about a2 stocks being too long for their t-rex arms

>>33333495
yeah I don't know why everyone thinks this is the only way to accurize an M14 I'm using a JAE 100 on the build I have going with LRB

>>33332442
Except for the massive PITA it is to turn into a competition rifle, and ergo a sniper rifle or DMR.

Rebedding your action to the extent that you have to on an M14 is unacceptable and speaks to the weakness of the rifle as a precision weapon.

>>33333679
>This, they even bitch about a2 stocks being too long for their t-rex arms

You mean like the Army did in the 70s

>>33333695
>what is a chassis
>what is most precision guns are built on chassis instead of bedded to stocks these days
>how do i into precision shooting

>>33333708
>>what is a chassis
>>what is most precision guns are built on chassis instead of bedded to stocks these days

What are the 60s-70s-80s-90s when the Army tried to make it into a sniper rifle/DMR?

>>33333720
chassis have only recently really become as mainstream as they are and they are objectively better than traditional stocks and bedding including for platforms like the M1. just because such systems didn't exist for those decades which represent the very beginnings of the true precision possibilities of modern rifles doesn't mean shit now. stop living in the past. join the rest of us in the future.

>>33322797
>Like this faggot, who has never shot one.
>Pepole take the "Garand sucks" meme at face value until they actually shoot a Mini-14/M1A/Garand. They aren't the best, but they actually work function well and hit what they're aimed at for the most part.

I used a stock .30-06 M1 Garand at the 1000 yard line during the Palmer match some many years ago. Managed to even hit my target, which isn't bad for a rifle made in the mid 1950's.

>>33322200
Dubs and double trips. Nice

>>33333695
Fun Fact: the average M14 selected for DMR in the sandbox was selected from piles and test fired. They picked the one with best groupings, put a solid mount and scope and sent it to work, initially. Then they just retrofitted those same DMR rifles with chassis when they went in for service. That's it.

Smith Enterprises started later producing their "sniper" DMR rifles afterward.

Sure, the AR sniper rifles were being utilized more again for a number of reason- easy customization, cross the board accessories, and the shear fact that every military person was familiar with ARs. Simple.

But you're right, the had a large stock of them and instead of sending them to the scrap heap, they thought, he, lets just used these fucking things. .308 is a perfect round effective up to and beyond 800 meters. Up to and beyond 1000 meters if you really spent $$ for competition grade rifle.

>>33322200
CHECK ME U FAGGOTS

>>33333708
A good starter rifle would be a "Springfield M1A 'Loaded'" model. Get an after market mount like an ARMS or Smith Enterprises and a decent scope, Leupold is fine. Put it in an original USGI fiberglass stock (make sure to check and select a stock with no cracks.)
Over time you can do minimal accurizing as your funds will dictate. Unitizing gas cylinder although debate says this doesn't add much, but do it anyway, lest moving part the better. Shim if needed.

After market stock and professional bedding. With a new barrel would be your biggest expenses.

>>33322200
>>33334278
>spends more on rifle than a couch.
White trash.

>>33334345
Actually the painting on the wall is worth more than the guns on the couch. It's ok, nobody will look down on you too much when they find out you're poor.

>>33334345
Oh, I'm Chinese.

>>33334345
why spend a ton of money on couches when you can throw it at guns. I love my 500 dollar IKEA couch so I can throw 10k or 8k at a rifle build. sounds better to me.

>>33323019
I can't fault a banstater for going with an M14, mainly because of economics. But know that an FN-49 can be had for the same or less, a MAS-49/56 can be had for 6-800 dollars and converted to .308 for around the same pricing, and the plain stocked BM-59 - ie building one with a Navy .308 garand reciever can be done for under 2k - esp. considering the fact you will be using the normal stock and not the expensive folding para stock.

Granted these options aren't as straight forward as walking into literally any gunshop and dumping 1400 dollars on an M1A

>>33334432
Classic is selling JRA BM-59s for $1300.

>>33325041
I already own the Garand and the M14 is a shit performer at its price point and mags make SCAR mags look cheap.

The SCAR is worth every penny, the M14 is worth half of what it costs

>>33326397
It's not an either or zero sum game, but a question of what is better for a first battle rifle (economics, value)

G3 Clone all the way.

The PTR91 is too good of a value right now to avoid, but the Voyager isn't that far off either, but the PTR has cheap as fuck mags and handles steel cased like a pro

>>33320290
$800 in Cuckbux aka twenty dollars in real money.

>>33332442
The only thing that saved its official DMR rentry was the SAGE EBR Stock. Without it we would have had AR-10's much earlier.

Before the Sage, various units had a hodge podge of (in storage) M21's and M25's, as well as some guard units with built up M14's.
The corps adopted the M14 DMR in 2001 with a McMillan M2A pistol gripped fiberglass stock. Which needed to be bedded old school.

The EBR stock took bedding out of the equation and the corps rearsenaled their M14DMR's into EBR stocks as quick as possible to make the M39 EMR

Part of the reason why the EMR was in service with the USMC was because Afghanistan and the USMC wasn't able to get enough Mk 11's.
Now the USMC has M110's

>>33334439
>Classic is selling JRA BM-59s

Downside to the BM-59
-Mags are very very expensive.

BM59's are better gassed as well. They are a very viable option instead of the M14 -plus they are lighter
Upside
Can convert M14 mags easily

>>33320290
>$598 for a scout squad clone with a forged reciever

Yes Please

>>33318714
Just get yourself Danish Garand in .308. M14 adds normal magazine and inability to hold zero to the package.

Then there come other factors. For a battle rifle FAL or G3 will do better(let alone things like SCAR-H or AR-10, but lets keep it in-period), for battle rifle turned DMR, G3 will probably also do better, FAL will be comparable, as a quasi-assault rifles they will all be mediocre(there's a reason why British removed full-fun switch from their FAL's).

The proof to its mediocrity is its spread. M14's can be seen only in America and in some of their satellites like South Korea(although all of them in reserve), contemporary FAL's and G3's are one of the more widespread military rifles around, with FAL being probably second(well, third) only to AK and AR-15.

>>33318924
5'8" and I have a garand and a full size AR with an a2 stock. No problems here.

>>33318714

I don't loathe it, I just think 99% of people who fawn over them today are hipsters who desperately want to stand out, fedora lords who think everything our ancestors did was leagues better than what we have today, or just dumb old people who don't know shit about anything but act like they're authorities on everything firearm related ever.

>>33334345
>advocating spending more money on a couch than on guns

I think you're lost, friend.

>>>/cm/

>>33334837
Or Californians.

>>33334393
You said you were an american making 500k yesterday.
>still haven't opened the actions
>chicom lying sack of shit

>>33319202
This. Saw a Midget shoot a M305 like a bad ass a few years back.

>>33335527
Oh look, you're also illiterate.

Wow, you won the jackpot.

>>33333495
>>33333686
Or you could just spend a hell of a less money on an AR-10 straight out of the box and get better accuracy than an old worn out service rifle.

Chris Bartocci said he will do detailed history video and the happenings with the AR10,he has very strong opinions knowing the details of that shitstorm and will probably destroy the M14 by the end of the video.
He says that the american solider was given sub par weapon for the time because of politics.

>>33318955
>Hating AK
Don't hate it, but an AR is inherently more accurate
>Hating M14
Don't hate it, but it is heavy and the design less ergonomic for modern battlefields
>Piston AR
They're heavier, more expensive, and only really better if you're shooting surpressed exclusively.
>Full size rifle cartidges
I love em, but I can carry more 5.56 than 7.62 NATO. 7.62 is for reaching out and touching.
>Hating bullpups
Shit balance, shit reloads.

>>33336068
>soldier*

File: 1468178477899.png (89KB, 662x650px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 662x650px

Too expensive for what it is. If I was going to spend the money on a decent m14 I would just get a scar instead. Already have a FAL so not a priority to own.

They look nice though.

>>33334386
Oh, you got a Picasso, Cletus?

>>33334851
>shops at Rent-a-center, nice gun collection though

I think you lost at life, friend.

>>33336089
Senpai Operator Tier

>>33336563
Didn't know /k/ was so pretentious about furniture.

/k/ouches

File: f24a46fbfc6aed534957c99bad55d3c2.jpg (214KB, 1569x1000px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1569x1000px

>>33332442
>If it was a piece of shit, it would not have been reintroduced as a DMR in Iraq/Afgh.
Funny how as soon as the MK17 was introduced every unit that had access to it dropped the MK14 EBRs. If it wasn't a piece of shit why was it dropped. M14fags are a bunch of retards, the only reason M14s were dragged out of arsenals is due to the fact they where the only 308s available at the time.

>>33336563
>spends his disposable income on things that will impress people instead of things he would enjoy

I'm not sure which one of us really loses here, friend.

>>33336592
/k/ is pretentious about everything.

Just look at this thread, and how you're a faggot if you don't have a gucci ar10

>>33336592

people are just picking apart anything they can find because they got BTFO'd

File: IMG_20170228_174639302.jpg (2MB, 2331x3535px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2331x3535px

>>33336655
Not worried about that. I'm worried that I have one kind old sofa and one pretty nice sectional. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>>33336598
>Funny how as soon as the M14 was introduced every unit that had access to it dropped the M1 Garand
>Funny how as soon as the M16A1 was introduced every unit that had access to it dropped the M14
>Funny how as soon as the M240 was introduced every unit that had access to it dropped the M60
>not understanding the concept of inventing a better mouse trap

>>33318714
I love it. But then again it really takes a lot for me to hate a weapon system and I'm a sucker for older rifles.For me to hate a gun they have to be objectively bad in every sense of the word. Like Hi-Point and early Taurus model bad. Or just ratfuck ugly and user unfriendly like those abominations Beretta put out. As well as most bullpups as they seem to go for fad design over functional design (however the AUG has a place in my heart).

Even guns I don't like (Glock, anything by DPMS, AK-74 etc.) aren't terrible, I just don't like the way they feel and handle. Nothing wrong with them objectively, just shooters preference.

But I like the M14. They're fun to shoot. Great for reaching out and touching a hog.

File: IMG_1385.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>33336542
Picasso? No. An original oil on canvas by a dead guy whose work is collected by the louvre? Yes.

File: IMG_1851.jpg (110KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 720x960px

The M14/M1A may not be the best rifle but god damn its sure more fun to shoot than any AR type rifle. I gladly paid 1500$ for my loaded M1A and do not regret it one bit. I also gladly pay for 2x as much for ammo to shoot it. I can ring steel with it out to my max available range with irons and optics all day and it will always put a smile on my face. In the time I have had my M1A I have built and sold 3 ARs because they just dont do it for me. My most recent AR build was sold to buy an M1 Carbine, which is also far more fun to shoot than any highspeed AR.

>100yd grouping with Federal M80 ball ammo (white box)

>>33336856
Tell me more about that five volume set

>>33336889
6 volumes. Last one is the kitchen manual. Modernist Cuisine, 2nd printing I believe.

>>33336897
Noice

>>33336856
FUCK ME, is that a BOB ROSS?

>>33335770
Still waiting on that open chamber, moneybags mcairsoft.

File: 1489435349855.jpg (13KB, 277x274px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 277x274px

>guy claims noguns
>gets proven wrong


>instead of just shutting up he doubles down on his retardation.

File: fast_pepe.jpg (70KB, 777x800px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 777x800px

>>33327398
Muthafuckin' Swayze Express

>>33320678
Heavier than Rosie O'Donnell, but grates cheese like a champ.

>>33326987
>Because a Garand isn't a Battle Rifle
>Semi-auto rifle that fires a full-powered rifle cartridge.

It literally fits the definition.

It's SCAR tier prices for Mini 14 tier performance.

>>33320955
>>33337300

>Jelly skellies

>>33322200
Czeched, also that sofa looks comfy as fuck to sleepy on DESU.

>>33337309
one could argue thats its use of an 8 round enbloc clip over the detachable magazine may put it more into the psedo battlerifle area compared to the m14/fal.

>>33337309
Your definition is wrong

>>33337367
Yeah, what's your definition then, champ?

>>33337166
>still no open chambers

>>33337382
>>33337354
The detachable mag part is the big differentiator.

>>33318714

I dislike them because I live in the Midwest and everyone tells me they'd MUCH rather have one of those than an M16 assault rifle, there's no point in having a military style rifle

Then what the fuck do they think an M14 is? Ahhhh

>>33337410
You got that from your ass or some other sperg on the internet's ass?

>>33318714
I love my M1A loaded, i got the wood cause im not a pansy faggot who complains about weight. Its a pretty good gun especially if you get the right mount and a good scope. I picked up a Vortex Viper HS T and its fairly accurate at 400 yards. Once my Federal Gold Match rounds come in imm gonna try for 800 yards and maybe even 1000. Its a fun gun and it works, literally anyone in the real world except for /k/ loves it. Im sure noguns hate this rifle but they hate any gun their favorite youtuber doesnt like

>>33337447
My ass, I dig some wonderful nuggets out of there from time to time.

>>33324340

Naw. Story is that it was commissioned using knives that the police seized

>>33319170
outdated for what? I have a Garand and a M1A and they're fun to shoot. Same reason why i own lever actions and SA revolvers, because i enjoy them. Not every rifle I own has to be sub-moa accurate and not everyone is as autistic as you are about guns

>>33337454
>He thinks that's a good scope
Pansy faggot

File: 1484792719716.jpg (31KB, 550x705px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 550x705px

>>33320435

Anyone have that picture of an operator with an M14, he's got sexy ass brown slicked back hair. I think he's on the deck of a ship.

>>33336868
Thats pretty bad grouping anon, @ 100 yards my ar can easily do under moa with shit ammo

File: seal-m14.jpg (127KB, 600x911px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 600x911px

>>33337640
Here you go faggot. BTW, they forward grip was an ad-hoc modification to help control muzzle climb when in full auto, which was the accuracy issue explained earlier above.

Gov issues a custom wood pistol grip stock with folding forward grip as well, along for the improved muzzle attachment. Forgot about that.

The full auto accuracy issue was big issue, and just one of the reason they went with lighter riffle/litter round combo toy plastic gun. Plus greedy politica and fat cats.

But in semi- this rifle will fuck your sister and your mother too.

>>33337692
2" group (with a "flyer," I'll assume) really isn't that bad for an "out of the box rifle" but we don't know how good the rifleman is either. He can work on his technique but in the field, he will get the job done.

>>33337745
>Plus greedy politica and fat cats.

Nope, that was the reason they introduced the abortion that was the M14 and forced 7.62x51 on everyone in NATO.
The M16 was a godsend for Nam troops and they loved it until the brass fucked up (again).

>>33337692
suuuuuuure

>>33337692

That was me shooting offhand with irons so yea I am going to bet you couldnt do any better with your AR.

I'm picking up a National Match M1A today. It's got an SWFA scope mounted on it.
Pretty excited.
Getting an amazing deal on it from a friend's dad. 1500 for the rifle and 10 mags.

Maybe it's not the best battle rifle, but 1500 for a like new NM?
Can't pass it up.

>>33318714
memes and fads is all /k/ is full of.

File: 30065801.jpg (333KB, 1334x1002px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1334x1002px

>>33319661
Is that fucking delta force!?

Fun fact, the roof of the Sistine chapel is painted like that

>>33337388
so a couple things

first, you weren't responding to me, the owner of the firearms

second, the terms laid out was that you post your W2 and gun collection with time stamp after I disassemble one of my guns. I even offered to let you pick the gun. You never agreed to the terms, so why would I waste my time with a poorfuck like you?

Look, I get it. You're poor, you're dumb, and you have nothing of value. But don't use yourself as a barometer for people who are vastly superior to you. It won't end well for you.

>>33337806
>LARP Intel Division HQ

>>33338257
SWFA scopes need a little refinement to reach their full potentials. Remove the scope from the rifle then head to the range... throw it out of the window onto the pavement while cruising between 45-65mph. Get a Leupold.

>>33336598
>having to literally tape up the gun so shit doesn't get in the gaping holes in the sides

Why don't they just get ar-10's sheesh.

>>33318726
i have used one and I will carry it any time anywhere over an AR variant, a SCAR I would carry over the 14 but only in 7.62

>>33337309
A battle rifle is a select-fire rifle that shoots full sozed cartridge out of a detachable magazine ya cunt

>>33333122
Its not lol

File: omg.gif (2MB, 276x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 276x225px

>>33322011
do you poorfags still by nuggets? AR15s are like under $500 now.

>>33339755
>identity theft
>timestamping an open action, thereby proving me wrong and instantly winning the argument

Until then, you're a poorfag lying chicom airsofter wasting our time.

>>33346399
>poorfag lying chicom airsofter
>3/4 of the things in the pic don't even have an airshit equivalent

You really should have stopped digging yourself deeper a long time ago.

>wasting our time
>our

You and who else? Pretty much everyone ITT thinks you're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

>>33319020
pretty much this.

>>33346420
>more delaying
Open action, please.

>>33346443

Not the guy with the couch, genius.
But I'm looking forward to you getting BTFO further.

>>33319276
>/k/ is still pretty salty about not getting American FALs

my grandfather was in the service back when the M14 changeover happened, and He's still salty about not getting the FAL. He was raised and trained on the Garand, but he bought a FAL back in the 70's and thinks the M14 was BIG ARMY bullshit and still rants about it. he calls the M14 a nigger rigged Garand.

>>33346448
>superior richfag reduced to arguing on 4chan
>aisofter caught in a lie

It was always lose-lose.

>>33333333
for curiosity

IMO it is heavy, but the aesthetics can't be beat.

File: m14.jpg (99KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 604x453px

The EBR was a heavy albatross around the neck, but it was damned sure better than an M4 in Afghanistan.

>>33319397
>7.62 NATO could tear ass through foliage like 5.56 never could
That's it in a nutshell. That's why a fireteam would have a mixed bag of weapons. Each serving a propose.