View Single Post
Old November 13, 2007, 02:43 PM   #24
MTMilitiaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
So, the M14 was worthless from the beginning. That is (one of the reasons) why the M16 was eventually adopted. It worked well as a select fire weapon.
Only to have that capacity butchered.

The M14 was adopted in the hopes that an entire family of weapons could be derived from a single platform. The power and high cyclic rate of the round combined with a weight about half of the BAR's combined to make this unreasonable so the project was scrapped in favor of a lighter rifle and ammunition capable of automatic fire. This automatic fire capability proved to be an unnecessary waste of ammunition, at least according to the top military brass and politicians making the decisions. So it was scrapped in favor of a burst fire mechanism.

And nobody finds it ironic that the automatic fire capability that the M16 was adopted for in the first place wasn't kept in later models of the weapon, and is now absent, or that the M16 isn't capable of meeting the requirements the M14 was expected to meet to any substantially or appreciably higher degree than the M14, yet the M14, or rather its related politics, holds the M14 as a failure while the M16, and its related politics, establish it as a success? And nobody bothers to wonder what advancements could have been made to the evolution of the M14 if the military had bothered to invest as much in it as it did the M16? Even with the potential shown by the system with current chassis systems? No takers?

The M14 was scrapped because certain politicians were ****** that it took Springfield Armory 14 years to improve on the M1 Garand, yet the platform they replaced it with took over 20 years to develop into a really noteworthy combat rifle. The government invested millions more into adapting the M16 to its needs, but wasn't willing to do the same with the M14. Over 40 years later, the M16 has matured into a decent rifle. With a fraction of the effort, some companies take the M14 and modernize it, yet the M14 is hype?

HOLY DOUBLE STANDARD BATMAN

Whatever

Quote:
So, the M14 was worthless from the beginning. That is (one of the reasons) why the M16 was eventually adopted. It worked well as a select fire weapon.
Which is why the M21s in Vietnam had less down time for repairs than the M40s, and most of that was because the scope it was employed with was complex and prone to breakage.
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK."
~Dave R.
MTMilitiaman is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.06223 seconds with 7 queries