Author Topic: Hey Lazs, an interesting read (Read 759 times)

Dago · « **on:** December 16, 2006, 08:32:24 AM »

Just thought Lazs might find this interesting with regard to one of our debates.

M14

Especially the first few pages.

lazs2 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 16, 2006, 09:56:46 AM »

not sure what your point is.

Improved? cheaper and more modern is improved. lighter more modern ammo is improved.

taking off the gas for operation at a point that reduces INHERANT accuracy is maybe not so improved... Using a round of slightly less power is maybe not so improved... using heavy magazines is maybe not so improved.

M14 is a great rifle... one of the last of the wood stock battle rifles. I wouldn't feel poorly armed with an M14 or an M1. I do like the 30 ought six a little better and I do like the en block clip and it's speedy reloads and ability to carry more ammo and the better profile of the M! for prone shooting and reloading.

I like having 20 rounds tho and the M14 wins that one. If I was going to be trying to get out as much lead into the air as possible then I would probly go with the M14... for militia type use... the M1 is really better.

One thing the article said (well a few) that I thought was funny was that they thought the M14 kicked a tiny bit less.... well...duh.... it shoots a less powerful round and it bleeds off gas before the bullet leaves the barrel... not exactly things to recomend it.

If you have an M1... you can grab the gun and a repo or real WWII ammo belt and you have 88 rounds in a belt.. a compact belt... you can grab some cloth bandoliers andjust poncho villa em... with an M14 or any modern battle riffle that takes mags... you need special gear to carry ammo... mag pouches.. clumsy battle type dress that doesn't work well with street or woods clothing.

Just like large heavy framed, hi capacity semi auto pistols are good for cops/military who wear them in the open on belts and have them only for one purpose and that is last ditch... the M14 is great for military who have special gear and who care more about getting the most fire support out than anything... even at that.. the poor old M14 is outdated..

For the rest of us... a good revolver and bolt action battle rifle or M1 is worlds ahead... the revolver because it is so versitile and the M1 or bolt for power and accuracy.

If we were cops or soldiers we might be better served by dago's techno gods.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2006, 09:59:48 AM »

Oh... and you do realize that guns and ammo is pretty much owned by their advertisers right?

That springfield armory pretty much owns guns and ammo? What did you think they were gonna tout, a gun that goes for over a grand by one of their advertisers or a gun you can buy from the CMP for less than $500?

lazs

Dago · « **Reply #3 on:** December 16, 2006, 10:31:33 AM »

heheheh true to form. Next please explain the superiority of the sling over the slingshot, the slingshot over the bow and arrow, then the bow and arrow over the musket.

Maverick · « **Reply #4 on:** December 16, 2006, 10:56:53 AM »

You two really need to get a room

john9001 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2006, 11:25:12 AM »

you don't have to carry extra mags for the M14, the ammo comes in 5 rnd stripper clips, the rifle has a bracket on top of the reciver that is made to accept the stripper clips so you can topup/reload the mag wile it is mounted on the rifle.

the ammo also comes with a attachment to put on the mag to load stripper clips into the mag.

i have used both M1 & M14 in the military and reload times are not a factor.

vorticon · « **Reply #6 on:** December 16, 2006, 11:49:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
heheheh true to form. Next please explain the superiority of the sling over the slingshot, the slingshot over the bow and arrow, then the bow and arrow over the musket.

until somepoint in the 1800s, a group of medieval bowmen would have kicked the tar out of a similarily sized group of men armed with muskets...

the bow had every advantage over early guns - it was light, quick to reload, had at least double the effective distance, better accuracy...to bad you could train 5 people to use a gun effectivly, for ever one bowman you got to a usefull level of competence.

Dago · « **Reply #7 on:** December 16, 2006, 02:28:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
until somepoint in the 1800s, a group of medieval bowmen would have kicked the tar out of a similarily sized group of men armed with muskets...

the bow had every advantage over early guns - it was light, quick to reload, had at least double the effective distance, better accuracy...to bad you could train 5 people to use a gun effectivly, for ever one bowman you got to a usefull level of competence.

The bow and arrow was and is still a heck of a weapon. I sure dont want to be hit with an arrow. Couple years ago I remember watching the guy on tvshoot the longbow doing tricks that were amazing.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 16, 2006, 03:29:09 PM »

Quote

The bow and arrow was and is still a heck of a weapon. I sure dont want to be hit with an arrow. Couple years ago I remember watching the guy on tvshoot the longbow doing tricks that were amazing.

It's not like anyone has never done that with a gun. Especially people not named Annie Oakley (spelling is sure to be FUBARed on that one).

Don't fool yourself, a group of bowmen wouldn't have destroyed a group of gunmen. The bow didn't dominate the armor plated knight on the battle field, the gun did. And when they started giving armor plated knights guns, the bowmen were ****ed.

ByeBye · « **Reply #9 on:** December 16, 2006, 03:35:59 PM »

Actually, bows did dominate armor plated knights. The bolts and arrows cut through them like they were butter.

at least that's what I recalled. Turns out the arrows easily went through lighter metal armor on the legs and arms, but had a hard time pentrating breastplate armor. The bowmen were a fearsome force on the battlefields for hundreds of years.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 16, 2006, 03:50:03 PM »

No. The death of the armor plate came with the gun. At first, the armor plating could be pierced by even the crudest of guns. So they made it thicker. And then the guns got better, and they made it thicker.

It got to the point where the knight was so heavy that the horse only had the strength for a single charge.

But at the end, you'd see all the breast plates being sold with a single dent in it. This was from the gun test. Armorers would fire a single pistol shot at the plate. If it stopped the bullet, the armorer could be assured that it was quality armor and could be sold. It still could not stop a rifle bullet.

So eventually the plate armor was phased out. It was heavy and doing nothing. Why weigh yourself down if you're going to get shot anyway?

TW9 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 16, 2006, 04:30:40 PM »

rather have one of these

lazs2 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:23:19 AM »

john you are correct but stripper clips are fragile. you have to have them stored properly.. they will bend and fall apart and shed their ammo at very inapropriate times if not carried properly.. I think you will agree the en bloc clip doesn't suffer from this.

I like both the M14 and the Garand. they are really the same rifle with the M14 made a little more cheaply and with magazines and a shorter action for a less powerful round. The gas systems are about equal but the M14 is inherantly less accurate by design.

This does not mean the M14 can't be a very accurate rifle... it can and is. It is simply that both systems are pretty much the same with the M14 the system that has less potential accuracy. The M14 is also a little less powerful than the Garand.

No big deal.

lazs

Dago · « **Reply #13 on:** December 17, 2006, 12:35:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
john you are correct but stripper clips are fragile. you have to have them stored properly.. they will bend and fall apart and shed their ammo at very inapropriate times if not carried properly.. I think you will agree the en bloc clip doesn't suffer from this.

I like both the M14 and the Garand. they are really the same rifle with the M14 made a little more cheaply and with magazines and a shorter action for a less powerful round. The gas systems are about equal but the M14 is inherantly less accurate by design.

This does not mean the M14 can't be a very accurate rifle... it can and is. It is simply that both systems are pretty much the same with the M14 the system that has less potential accuracy. The M14 is also a little less powerful than the Garand.

No big deal.

lazs

It is just hilarious that you are confident that you know more than virtually every (actual) recognized expert in the world.

You, a hobbiest are empowered with the "truth", despite the fact that your "truth" is in complete disagreement with those who work full time in the industry, who have spent their complete working lives with those rifles.

Suave · « **Reply #14 on:** December 17, 2006, 01:14:54 PM »

What do the recognized experts say?

I understand that 30.06 is a more powerfull than 308 winchester, but 308 win is a more accurate cartridge.

I remember reading that the m1 in 30.06 is marginally less accurate than m14 in 7.62nato, but m1s converted to 7.62 proved to be more accurate than the m14s. Both cartridges are good deer and elk rounds, but too powerfull for combat shooting. If combat was still what it was in wwI when soldiers did most of their shooting stationary, they would be great, but it isn't.

The 3 most important characteristics of a modern infantry rifle are: reliability, controllability, target acquisition speed, this has to be balanced with leathality

I also know that, and this is difficult for people to believe, DOD tests showed that field grade m16s shot tighter groups than field grade m14s.