The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 19, 2021, 06:11 PM   #26
SR420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,265
The M14 served credibly in the early years of Vietnam, then again in the Gulf war, and again in GWOT. Beginning in 2004 the M14 finally had some product improvement & enhancement money invested in it, in 2011 Rock Island produce about 6500 M14EBR-RI that earned high praise from the men that actually used them. The Crazy Horse variant that Smith Enterprise built are legendary for accuracy, durability, and accuracy. The modernized & enhanced M14 battle rifle is an amazing weapon.
SR420 is offline  
Old July 19, 2021, 07:41 PM   #27
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,701
I find it interesting that most nations abandoned the 30cal as a basic individual weapon decades ago.
But I’d probably choose a garand action over a FAL, even though I find FALs more attractive visually, if I was looking for such a thing.
rickyrick is offline  
Old July 19, 2021, 10:28 PM   #28
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 23,600
Quote:
I find it interesting that most nations abandoned the 30cal as a basic individual weapon decades ago.
How do you find that "interesting"???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 20, 2021, 06:38 PM   #29
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,701
Not much beyond that statement.
When I was young, even early during my time in the army, I had heard all of the stories about the “ineffective 22” rifle that the army was using.
Some old soldiers spread stories about soldiers dying because the M16s would jam and the cartridge was ineffective.
Anyway, I know that you know all that was said about the M16 and similar type weapons, so I don’t need to give the whole litany of gripes.

I repeated some of those claims.
I discovered later on why the 30cal individual weapon was replaced with smaller projectiles.
All this had been discussed here at length and it’s not really in the spirit of this thread.
I just thought the evolution from big 30cal cartridges to intermediate cartridges was interesting, that’s all.

My main contribution is that I own a nice FAL but I don’t really like doing anything but looking at it.
I had more fun shooting a 91/30 then beating the bolt back open with a mesquite log than shooting the FAL, lol
rickyrick is offline  
Old July 21, 2021, 04:52 PM   #30
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,060
I get a little confused on what people call battle rifles. I have a couple garands, M1a. FAL.
Shot some competition with the Garands and M1A.

But the only rifle I went into battle with was a M16A1.

Hard to convince me it wasnt a battle rifle.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old July 21, 2021, 11:23 PM   #31
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 23,600
Quote:
But the only rifle I went into battle with was a M16A1.

Hard to convince me it wasnt a battle rifle.
People always have to name things, and put them in groups. Some folks decide on a definition based on what something is, and other people use the same words to define that thing based on what it does, or what is done with it.

So, yes, it can get confusing. You went to battle with an M16A1, but an M16A1 doesn't fit some folks definition of "battle rifle", including mine.

I consider the M16A1 to be an assault rifle. However the US Federal government says its a "rifle" as its military designation, but for civilian ownership the govt says it is a machine gun.

The German Sturmgewehr developed late in WWII set the pattern and its primary features were the definition of assault rifle from then on. The term "battle rifle" came along later, as a convenient way of grouping those military semi and select fire rifles that didn't fit the definition of assault rifles, primarily because they don't use an "intermediate class" cartridge.

Just a handy "handle" to clearly identify the group as not being in the Assault Rifle class.

Now, there folks who define them by use, and while under the rules of English they are not wrong, they aren't really right.

If you assault someone with a rifle, no matter what that rifle is, it could be called an assault rifle. But that's hardly the definition most commonly used.
Especially because by the same logic if you don't assault someone with a rifle, then it can't be an assault rifle. English is funny like that...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 22, 2021, 08:25 AM   #32
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 7,422
Quote:
So, yes, it can get confusing. You went to battle with an M16A1, but an M16A1 doesn't fit some folks definition of "battle rifle", including mine.
Up front,real clear, whatever rifle our Veterans carried into a Battle was THEIR Battle Rifle,on that day,in the mud and the blood .

And I myself would not tell them any different.

I prefer to keep it clear I'm not a Veteran.I do not speak as one.(I loathe the "stolen valor" types)

On one hand,we have the Veteran who carried what was issued as his rifle,certainly in battle

Then on the other,for the armchair academic discussion of firearms in general,we have a classification of "battle rifle".

I'm not sure if the single shot 45-70's or 50-70's,which ever they may have been,used by Custer's men were battle rifles.It was a battle.The ammo was heavy. They did not carry a lot. Maybe 40 rounds?

But no doubt the Krag Teddy's Boys used at San Juan Hill were Battle rifles.

They were a wood and steel handle for a bayonet,which the troop relied on because the assumption was,he would run out of ammo.

And,the SMLE was a jolly good battle rifle.

Those were the days we had Battles!! Proper battles! Trenches! Generals! The whistle blows at 7AM,and thousands of men go over the top! And charge into machine guns. And they fell by the thousands.

Then if by chance the enemy trench was breeched,that battle rifle was a great tool in the trench!! It held 5 rounds,had a magazine cutoff,and made a great bayonet handle....We even gave our troops really long bayonets!!

A battle rifle really needed a big cartridge for trench to trench volley fire. The proper battle tactic carried over from the longbow.

Etc,Etc,Etc.

A proper battle rifle must use a powerful,heavy cartridge ! But a soldier didn't need to carry very many,his rifle was long and heavy and made a great handle for a bayonet.

But at some point the nature of a battle changed. No trenches. No lines.

Ride a helicopter to a hole in the jungle...jump out and get left there.

Shoot lotsa bullets . Come up with a body count. Go home. Or walk around a couple of weeks.Then go home. Having lotsa bullets was a good idea.

I have an older brother who served as a medic in an A-team.A little south and west of Da Nang. 1968. He incorporated a WW2 BAR belt into his web gear. It held 24 full magazines,He'd also carry belted 7.62 and grenades. Being a medic can be dangerous. Still need lotsa bullets. There were some Aussies around who carried FAL's. I don't know how much ammo they actually carried. The basic load was 60 rounds.Those Aussies are tough. Probably carried bayonets.

Now days,from what I hear, instead of using a proper 30-06 battle rifle cartridge...there might be a sniper packing a Barret 50,or an A-10 in the sky,or maybe an armed drone,or a 40 mm grenade launcher you can do "volley fire " with.

Battle has changed. The grunt on the ground needs lotsa bullets. Not so much the big long heavy handle for a bayonet. Kinda clumsy in HumVee or chopper.

The definition of "Battle" has changed. The Rifleman still goes to battle. His rifle has changed.

He is still a rifleman in a battle.

Maybe,just maybe,the definition of "Battle Rifle" is obsolete.Needs an update.

Of the NATO countries, how many would go to battle with 7.62 NATO cartridge rifles?

Last edited by HiBC; July 22, 2021 at 08:44 AM.
HiBC is online now  
Old July 22, 2021, 09:58 AM   #33
baddarryl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 29, 2011
Location: Cape Fear!
Posts: 1,652
All BS aside this thread kinda makes me want an M14!!
baddarryl is offline  
Old July 22, 2021, 11:04 AM   #34
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 23,600
Quote:
All BS aside this thread kinda makes me want an M14!!
Actual M14s are pretty spendy, there's only a handful in the civilian registry that can be legally transferred.

I've got the next best thing, an M1A same as an M14 without the full auto parts. Mine is all GI except the receiver, one of the early guns, got it in the 80s when $500 (with a bunch of accessories) was a fair market price. Rack grade, suits me fine. Shoots better than I do, these days.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 22, 2021, 11:56 AM   #35
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 7,422
IMO, beyond being a good rifle, the M14/M1A has what the Harley Davidson has.

I don't quite know the right words......but the best response is " Yup!"
HiBC is online now  
Old July 22, 2021, 02:27 PM   #36
chadio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2011
Posts: 789
After going to breakfast with son and long term friend, all 3 of us met at the LGS.

Got to handle a PTR91 for the first time, felt good, wish I could have fired it...

Handled a Zastava AK, fell completely in love with it. Have fired an AK47 / 74 before.

Of the rifles I observed, some were @ 150% of street price (panic pricing).

.308 ammo, 20 rounds, $19.99.

Walked out with all of my money intact. Went home to hug the guns and ammo that I have...
__________________
Ex - Navy, Persian Gulf Veteran. Loved shooting the M14, 1911, M60, M2
chadio is offline  
Old July 22, 2021, 02:43 PM   #37
chadio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2011
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBC View Post
IMO, beyond being a good rifle, the M14/M1A has what the Harley Davidson has.

I don't quite know the right words......but the best response is " Yup!"
I know the words... It's called 'owners with attitudes'. No need to explain, you already know what I mean
__________________
Ex - Navy, Persian Gulf Veteran. Loved shooting the M14, 1911, M60, M2
chadio is offline  
Old July 22, 2021, 05:33 PM   #38
Ricklin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: SW Washington state
Posts: 1,718
My time

I did a stint with our favorite uncle, USAF 76-82. 4 years active, 2 inactive reserve. I reckon we just didn't do battle rifles at all. We did however have buffs with nukes aboard 24/7 365. Can't recall what their wheels up time was but it was minutes, and not very many of them. I was a cold warrior, no complaints pretty good gig overall.
When you have nukes, we only needed rifles for the guys guarding the nukes....
4 years my total experience with a rifle during those years was one day toward the end of basic training. At least it was an entire day.
A march across the base, morning was learning the weapon in the classroom.
We then went to the range 100 yards I think. We did all fire around 100 rounds. Shot from several positions. During our scored shooting the lanes were too close together, and not well marked at all. I failed to qualify with the M-16, and it was one of the best things that could have happened. It helps to know I enlisted open general in USAF. I needed to get in quick, preggers wife no health insurance.
Back to the range, as I said lanes were tight, I got confused as to which target was mine. When the targets were scored I failed to qualify, the guy in the lane on my right won a medal. I've been shooting since I was little, great shooting at the wrong target for part of the string. This was a VERY good thing actually. It is almost a sure bet if you join AF open general, and also happen to be a big guy in excellent shape, you will be a security policeman. I reckon I could have become a good cop after. Thanks to my less than good performance shooting, I became a dental clinic troop in the USAF.
Security police is not a plumb position in the USAF, not at all. Working in the hospital dental clinic was virtually like a civilian job with shiny shoes and short hair and saying sir a lot. The dentists were a pretty mellow bunch as officers go. I've stuck with the dental biz all these years, it's been very good to me as I get closer to retiring, I doubt I could have done as well, and getting shot at is darned unlikely.
__________________
ricklin
Freedom is not free
Ricklin is offline  
Old July 22, 2021, 05:37 PM   #39
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 23,600
I've had an M1A, an FAL, an HK 91 and have personal hands on experience with three different AR pattern .308s. Still have the M1A. it's just ...better for me.

Now, today, I expect the bugs have been mostly worked out of the .308 ARs but the three I used back in around the turn of the millenium all had magazine problems, and there were more than 3 different "generations" of mag for one of the guns.

I found the FAL to be long and clumsy, though the controls were decent and the trigger was "ok". Likewise for the HK though it was short and clumsy instead. Half a foot shorter than my M1A, but weighed as much, and the controls are awkward the safety unreachable with the shooting hand in the shooting grip, and the trigger was again, fair. Smooth enough but "GI safe" (long and heavy)
The one way charging handle was not a benefit to me, and of course, it was nasty with its fired brass.

My M1A has the old M1 Garand "locking bar" rear sight, the trigger is, of course the GI two stage, but take up is smooth and so is the pull during the final segment. Not a match grade trigger but easily "shootable". For me, anyway.

The M1A had the most precise sights of the bunch, recoil was mild, and accuracy with GI ball or my handload equivalents was good enough for me, Not a match gun, nothing on it match grade, just a good solid accurate dependable rifle I deeply respect and enjoy.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 22, 2021, 06:45 PM   #40
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,701
I think clumsy is a good description for the FAL.
Like I said, mine is a particularly attractive FAL, but there’s where the love ends for me.
Would love to have an M1 but I think it isn’t in the stars for me.
M14 unreachable. M1a, I probably won’t pony up the dough.
.308 AR10ish rifle is easily achievable... but there’s not much beauty to them.
rickyrick is offline  
Old July 22, 2021, 08:00 PM   #41
chadio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2011
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricklin View Post
,,,, During our scored shooting the lanes were too close together, and not well marked at all.......
Back to the range, as I said lanes were tight, I got confused as to which target was mine. .
I know exactly what you mean, as I shot quals with the m14...
__________________
Ex - Navy, Persian Gulf Veteran. Loved shooting the M14, 1911, M60, M2
chadio is offline  
Old July 22, 2021, 09:16 PM   #42
JustJake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2020
Posts: 180
Quote:
All BS aside this thread kinda makes me want an M14!!
Nope.

What you want is the most awesome M1 Garand, as in a Service Grade M1 from CMP.

Why? 'Cause it be mo' better. It comes with all USGI parts and the receiver is forged not cast, ... unlike certain aftermarket commercial derivatives.

Nobody wants cast junk on a battle rifle. You might actually have to use it for real someday.
__________________
I use the Jake Brake every chance I get.
Don't care if it annoys you.
Hear me now?!
JustJake is offline  
Old July 23, 2021, 07:31 AM   #43
baddarryl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 29, 2011
Location: Cape Fear!
Posts: 1,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJake View Post
Nope.

What you want is the most awesome M1 Garand, as in a Service Grade M1 from CMP.

Why? 'Cause it be mo' better. It comes with all USGI parts and the receiver is forged not cast, ... unlike certain aftermarket commercial derivatives.

Nobody wants cast junk on a battle rifle. You might actually have to use it for real someday.
I actually have one. I guess I didn't know they were so similar. I absolutely love my Garand. Just shot a match with it this past weekend actually.
baddarryl is offline  
Old July 23, 2021, 11:08 AM   #44
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 7,422
Pretty much the M-14 is a Garand rework. Shorter ,straight gas system.Eliminates long op rod. 7.62 vs 30-06. Re-engineered trigger housing,floor plate,feeding to accept box magazines.

Similar sights,trigger,field strip. If you are at home with a Garand,the M-14/M1A will feel like home,too.

As far as forged vs cast....I'm not your advisor. Ruger has been very successful casting receivers.Cast CAN be horrid,or very good. Mr SR 420 has soaked himself in the M-14/M1A variants for years.

I would ask him (even though I did joke with him about Tapco )

Last edited by HiBC; July 23, 2021 at 11:17 AM.
HiBC is online now  
Old July 23, 2021, 11:20 AM   #45
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 23,600
Quote:
Why? 'Cause it be mo' better. It comes with all USGI parts and the receiver is forged not cast, ...
I don't think the M1 Garand is "mo better" than the M14/M1A, in fact, I think its just the opposite. PROVIDED the M1A in question is not a cheap knock off, which are on the market today. (and by cheap I mean cheaply made, not cheaply priced!)

The M14 is the M1Garand with most of the bugs worked out. It does what the Garand does, and does it a bit better.

It shoots the same bullet at the same speed. The sights are the same, the trigger group is almost identical. The M14 gas system is better, it is self regulating, which the original Garand was not. The op rod is shorter and a bit less complex, and much less prone to being damaged.

Gone is the Garand's 8rnd enbloc clip system and the complicated mechanism it needed to function and eject. The M14 uses a sensible, simple box magazine. The M14 kept the best features of the M1 Garand, and improved others. And, did I mention that the M14 is about a pound LIGHTER???

Where the M14 got "done wrong" was by Army brass requiring a select fire system, and thinking that a decent RIFLE would be a good replacement for a SMG, a Rifle, and a Squad automatic rifle (LMG) all in one.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 23, 2021, 01:55 PM   #46
tex45acp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2005
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 1,002
I have my Grandfathers Springfield 03A3 that is very accurate for a WW1/WW2 battle rifle. I would gladly take it to battle without hesitation.
__________________
Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick!!
tex45acp is offline  
Old July 23, 2021, 02:58 PM   #47
Ricklin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: SW Washington state
Posts: 1,718
My relationship with the M16 started with that bit of serendipity I detailed earlier in the thread.
As far as the M16 goes? It ended that day too. Have yet to handle another. In fact I avoided the AR craze completely.
Had they permitted us the flip the happy switch? We were instructed that should that happen, basic training would start over for that man.

I did finally buy a Colt AR M4gery it remains unfired in the safe, I'd rather have a Garand.
__________________
ricklin
Freedom is not free
Ricklin is offline  
Old July 23, 2021, 09:00 PM   #48
JustJake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2020
Posts: 180
Quote:
Pretty much the M-14 is a Garand rework.
Nobody can own a real M14 without all the gommit permissions slips, tax stamp, and the discretionary income of an Elon Musk or a Geof Bezos.

So back in the real world, the comparison is really between the M1 Garand, a real USGI battle rifle, and a commercial M1A, with a cast receiver and numerous non-GI parts ... from (take your pick): Springfield Armory, Fulton Armory, et al.

Both are semi-autos.

I'll take the M1, thank you.
__________________
I use the Jake Brake every chance I get.
Don't care if it annoys you.
Hear me now?!
JustJake is offline  
Old July 24, 2021, 08:26 AM   #49
SR420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,265
I love my M14s with forged receivers using GI & SEI parts.

SR420 is offline  
Old July 25, 2021, 01:01 PM   #50
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 23,600
Quote:
So back in the real world, the comparison is really between the M1 Garand, a real USGI battle rifle, and a commercial M1A, with a cast receiver and numerous non-GI parts ... from (take your pick): Springfield Armory, Fulton Armory, et al.
I don't see a problem with cast vs. forged, or with GI vs. non-G! parts, IF THEY ARE DONE RIGHT. If not, neither is acceptable.

My M1A has a forged receiver (as far as I know) and it has all GI parts, my barrel even has the Federal Stock Number on it...

Not quite sure what you mean by "real battle rifle"...

I have seen some tests with Chinese made M14s, and some did have "soft" receivers (cast, I think) which they did fix early on. Many later guns had "soft" internal parts which, as far as I know, they never did really fix. One test was a head to head against an M1A, and the Chinese gun's springs packed it in at the 500 rnd mark. The M1A just kept going and going...

SO, I'd say, if you buy a cheap knock off, you get a cheap knock off. If you get quality, you get quality, but you do pay for it.

The last M1 Garands our govt bought were during the Korean war, and the last of those were delivered by 56.

If you're buying a gun for its individual history or its design history, that's fine. people pay what I think is barking stupid money for a Colt SAA, because of its heritage. I am better served with a Ruger Blackhawk and its lots cheaper, too!

Keep and enjoy your M1 Garand. I've had them, and I like the M1A better. I've fired the M14 on full auto. I have no use for that feature, so the M1A being semi only is not any kind of a drawback or disappointment for me. Nor does it bother me that the M1A isn't exactly the same weapon we carried to war. Its as close as I can legally and economically get, and that's good enough for me, too.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2020 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.17218 seconds with 11 queries