Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dago on December 16, 2006, 08:32:24 AM
-
Just thought Lazs might find this interesting with regard to one of our debates.
M14 (http://ns1.danicar.net/~jgofton/G-n-A/)
Especially the first few pages.
-
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 the poor old M14 is outdated..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
-
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
-
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. ;)
-
You two really need to get a room :huh
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
rather have one of these :aok
(http://myspace-132.vo.llnwd.net/01564/23/15/1564105132_m.jpg)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The bow didn't dominate the armor plated knight on the battle field, the gun did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
-
Thrawn, Laser is NEVER wrong.
You have noticed that by now?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
You beat me to it :mad:
-
Interesting read Thrawn, doesn't really prove much though.
Though it is funny as to how so many people are making claims when they know very little about it.
I understand that 30.06 is a more powerfull than 308 winchester,
Marginally more powerful.
but 308 win is a more accurate cartridge.
It's wrong to generally claim that one cartridge is more accurate then another. Each cartridge's accuraccy is based off of construction tolerances.
I can throw together a batch of ****ty 308's and a batch of immaculate .30-06's, that doesn't mean that 30-06's are more accurate then 308's.
I remember reading that the m1 in 30.06 is marginally less accurate than m14 in 7.62nato,
It is my experience that the M14 with milsurp ammo is a touch more accurate then the Garand is with milsurp ammo. The accuraccy difference would only be noticeable at ranges of greater then 400 yards.
But like I said before, accuraccy is based off of how much money you want to put into your ammo. A self loader can put 5 rounds in a quarter at 200 rounds with either gun. But they spend a lot of time and money perfecting the loadings for each round
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.
Disagree. But now we are broaching the topic of opinions. I think the largest mistake the american military ever made was switching from .308/.30-06 to .223 . But I've gotten into page long discussions as to why, don't feel like doing that again here.
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.
Which field grade m16's? There were many different versions. The AR-15 would have, considering it was manufactured with tighter tolerances and better materials then the field grade M14. But the first couple versions of the M16 would not have shot tighter groups. It wasn't until the mid-to late 80's that the M16 finally reached a quality level equal to that of the M14, which was coming up on 40 years old. After 25 years and the direct cause of thousands of deaths, the M16 was finally a suitable equal (minus 5.56 vs. .308 arguments) to the M14.
-
lasersailor.
'There is also possibly references to defensive use of cannon or more likely psychological gunpowder use from tubes in mid-13th century Moorish Spain. Hand cannon or hand cannon-like devices were reported to be employed against the Mongols in 1260 and 1304, in an unattributed manuscript probably written by Shams al-Din Muhammad al-Ansari al-Dimashqi, which also depicts fire arrows and long-handled handguns. By 1340, light cannon are widespread enough in the Islamic world to end up in military inventories."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon#Medieval_Use_in_Europe_and_the_Middle_east
"Conventional wisdom says that plate armour faded away on the battlefield soon after firearms were introduced. This is very much not the case. Crude cannons were being used before plate armour became the norm. Soon, in the 1400s a small, mobile "hand cannon" was being used by horsemen. Improved crossbows, and the first pistols and pre-musket long arms, began to take a heavy toll on the mail clad, and partially plated knights and foot soldiers. Rather than dooming the use of body armour, the threat of small firearms intensified the use and further refinement of plate armour. There was a 150 year period in which more and better metallurgically advanced steel armour was being used, precisely because of the danger posed by the gun."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour#Plate_armour.2C_1400_-_1620
"Armour was not confined to the Middle Ages, and in fact was widely used by all armies until the end of the 17th century, for both foot and mounted troops. Leg protection was the first part to go, replaced by tall leather boots. By the early part of the 18th century, only field marshals and royalty remained in full armour on the battlefield, as they were tempting targets for rifled musket fire. However, cavalry units continued to use front and back plates, and either helmets or "secrets", a steel protection they wore under a floppy hat"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour
there were still gaps in the armour that a well placed arrow would go through...problem with bowmen is it takes to long to train them, and they were just as ineffective against armour as the gun...
they still:
fired faster
more accuratly
were lighter
cost less to make a bow
fired a whole lot quieter
didnt randomly explode
worked in the rain
-
I was wrong.
-
You just entered a very small, very elite club on this BBS.
-
5500+ posts?
-
I could probably count the number of people on this board with the balls to admit they were wrong on one...possibly two hands.
-
dago... I am not argueing with the "experts". I am argueing with your interpretation of what they are saying.
I think that you will find that most agree that a gas system that uses gas after the bullet leaves the muzzle is inherently more accurate than one that uses some of the gas while the bullet is still in the rifling.
I don't think you will find any expert to say that the ought six is not more powerful than the .308
The Garand worked for millions.. the M14 was dropped from service very quickly. It is now relegated to games and special purpose military use and.. even then... it is being phased out.
When you (properly) convert the Garand to the less powerful .308 it is more accurate than the M14. the M14 can be made to be extremely accurate and there really is no point in messing around with the old Garand for these games. New M14/M1a's are being manufactured.. the Garand is more difficult to make. The springfield newly made Garands are inferior with cast recievers and have even proven to be dangerous in the past. The lower pressure, shorter reciever M1a is not as picky about strength of the reciever and will work with cast pieces just fine.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dago
, then the bow and arrow over the musket. ;)
Kinetic Energy. An arrow, being a much heavier grain than a bullet (and nasty looking arrowheads), can easily penetrate level III body armor. A true musket... I'm not sure if it could or not. I'm not keen on finding out.
-
the M14 was dropped from service very quickly. It is now relegated to games and special purpose military use and.. even then... it is being phased out.
Disagree. With the new desert environment and sometimes engagements at longer ranges, it's being reissued.
-
The M14 was dropped from service because it was replaced by the M16 firing the .223, and it was the move to .223 more than anything that drove the M14 from standard issue.
Remember, it was the M14 the drove the M1 Garand out of service.
The M14 is being issued in larger numbers now, and infantry platoons get at least 2. Can't say I have heard of any M1 Garands being issued now. Hmmm, wonder why, don't they know what Lazs knows?
-
I can't imagine that they would issue a battle rifle in ought six that hasn't been made in 50 years when they have a huge stock of M14's laying around that they can't even sell.
You won't be able to buy an m14 from our government... they will languish in armories around the country for even more decades untill they are finally all destroyed.
If they had a more modern battle riffle in .308 they would be issueing it.. as it is.. they are even using civilian bolt action rifles. The .223 was not the panacea that they all thought it would be. The M14 and it's deficiencies probly did more to bring on the .223 than anything... it was a bad idea to make a full auto Garand.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I can't imagine that they would issue a battle rifle in ought six that hasn't been made in 50 years when they have a huge stock of M14's laying around that they can't even sell.
You won't be able to buy an m14 from our government... they will languish in armories around the country for even more decades untill they are finally all destroyed.
If they had a more modern battle riffle in .308 they would be issueing it.. as it is.. they are even using civilian bolt action rifles. The .223 was not the panacea that they all thought it would be. The M14 and it's deficiencies probly did more to bring on the .223 than anything... it was a bad idea to make a full auto Garand.
lazs
First, was had millions of m14's come back from lend lease in the mid 90's. We should have started selling them much like the garands, but instead Clinton just started having them destroyed.
Next, there weren't any deficiencies with the M14, that didn't even come into play when they were replacing it. They were basing the replacements off of a study the army did as to which cartridge would make a better soldier. It had nothing to do with the gun, the study did. I still think the grandchildren of those who did the study should be found and beaten to punish and tarnish the family name for actually publishing the studies.
-
How would the CMP sell full auto m14's "much like they do the Garand"?
Garands came back in the same way from korea and greece and a number of countries but were then sold to the public through the CMP.
If you think there is no problem with firing an M14 full auto and that the studies were wrong about that then you probly never fired one. I have fired a BAR (great gun) and the m14... the full auto feature was a mistake on the m14 just as the single fire was not needed on the first BAR's
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If you think there is no problem with firing an M14 full auto and that the studies were wrong about that then you probly never fired one. I have fired a BAR (great gun) and the m14... the full auto feature was a mistake on the m14 just as the single fire was not needed on the first BAR's
lazs
i have fired the M14 on full auto, also the BAR, i found no problem, but of course i just a dumb marine.
effective auto fire with a BAR or M14 is aimed fire in 3 rnd bursts, not like they do at thunder ranch where they just spray lead.
the marine fire team had 3 M1's and 1 BAR, the M14 was to replace that with 3 semi auto M14's and one full auto M14. The semi auto M14's could be converted to full auto by inserting a select fire leaver in the receiver, the squad leader carried the extra leavers to be used as needed in battle.
44MAG
USMC retired
-
john.. to me, the heavier BAR was much easier to fire 3-5 round bursts accurately with... and that was with the more powerful ought six round.
If the M14 was such a great select fire weapon... one has to ask why... even with marines.. the select fire lever was kept from them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
john.. to me, the heavier BAR was much easier to fire 3-5 round bursts accurately with... and that was with the more powerful ought six round.
If the M14 was such a great select fire weapon... one has to ask why... even with marines.. the select fire lever was kept from them.
lazs
I am surprised you are not aware that no matter the weapon, the overwhelming majority of rounds fired on full auto do not hit a target. The military became well aware of this, and it is the reason the M4 Carbine issued to our troops today do not have full auto available, rather single fire or three round burst mode only.
You should do some reading on the subject.
BTW, familiar with the E2 version of the M14? This was a good answer for the M14 replacing the BAR.
Lazs, your emotion overrides your knowledge and ability to discuss objectively.
-
If the M14 was such a great select fire weapon... one has to ask why... even with marines.. the select fire lever was kept from them.
Because the marines were taught to fire single aimed shots.
My dad was at the basic riflery range once. The DI told him to switch into full auto and to unload down range. The moment his gun had shot more then 2 rounds the DI's started to kick him, screaming that he is never to fire full auto.