Just a quick Navy story before I enjoy this vid. In the early '80's I was on the bridge of the USS Kalamazoo, AOR6, during general quarters drills in the N. Atlantic. Someone tossed a bright orange 55gal drum overboard and we cut circles around it at about 600 yards. Each member of the bridgewatch team got to fire 200 rds. of .50 cal from the port bridgewing mount. Well, a thousand rounds later the barrel bobbed along happily unhit by .50 bmg. A young man who had just become a Gunners Mate a couple of weeks before shouldered an M14 and fired three shots at it offhand. He then unloaded and safed his weapon and left the bridge. Yep, thirty seconds later the orange drum sank forever. It was the coolest thing ever.
That’s actually really cool that the M-14’s magazine can sorta function as both a detachable and internal, since you can just push a clip into it. I never even knew that.
As a Seabee this was our camp weapon... they were "a choice" when guarding the camp perimeter... saw a few with synthetic stocks and a 3 round burst function... (S, 3, A)... almost everyone would use the 14 as it was easier to clean and gave you more confidence then the toy like M.16...
I've always loved the performance of the M-14. I used a National Match version both as a member of the California Army National Guard State Rifle Team, and later on Combat Patrols as a SOT-A (Special Operations Team - Alpha) member in Afghanistan. The range and reliability of the M-14 is second to none, and certainly superior in many aspect to the M-4/M-16 series rifle. My 2 cents. SSG. U.S. Army (Medically Retired) Infantry / Sniper / SOF Intel (SOT-A), multiple tours
"This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me."
Memories....I watched this and almost fell asleep from the monatone speaker just like when I saw this in the Corps. Some things never change. The M14 / M1a is still an excellent rifle, they just need better training films. Semper Fi
In 1968 I took my BCT at Ft. Bragg, NC We all had to qualify with the M-14, and as we were in the transition, we also qualified with the M-16A1. I qualified as Marksman in both. The M-14 was heavier more rugged, kicked a hell of a lot more, (sometimes a bruise in the arm), but we prefered it than the 16 which we called the Mattel rifle. Then in 1969 when deployed overseas, we were issued the M-16.
@@balthazarvanovermeire7271 I think you have the M14 confused with the M16, and even then it's hearsay.... The M14 is a robust, reliable and accurate firearm more so than the cheap Chinese Kalashnikov copies that were used in the Vietnam war...
Not to start an argument, you are correct in saying that, 3 are taken off if your enemy cares about its soldiers, if they are prepared to die honorably on a battlefield, then most likely the enemy will not care for the wound and fight as their companions lay dying.
A gun is a gun, and bullets are bullets. The trade-off of ballistics and power is equal between these rounds, therefore both should be feared equally. It's much easier to engage multiple targets (lethally) and at a much longer range than an AK. Like I said it's a trade-off.. Both weapons in the hands of an expert are just as deadly as the other.
Load from the top? Wow!!! They must anticipated California’s gun control laws. 🤣🤣. I bet this gun would’ve dominated Vietnam War if chambered in 7.92x33 ( STG 44 ).
I've heard people claim this gun is "delicate", meaning its unreliable and easily broken. I'm somewhat skeptical...considering its based on Garand action, which has proven itself to be rugged and reliable.
The switch from the 7.62 M14 to the 5.56 M16 was made by the U.S. forces because it was decided long ago that a high powered rifle wasn't needed for most field operations. The newer weapon and its ammo are lighter, cheaper, easier to carry, and more manageable in rapid fire situations. The 62gr 5.56 round has enough power to pierce a standard infantry helmet at 600m, and no less lethal than the 7.62 in anti-personnel ops.
So optimistic. Honestly when you compare it to almost all AR10 rifles it’s still better. I’d rather have a rifle that works and gets consistent hits on target, than have a rifle that shoots smaller groups whenever it’s not jammed up or broken.
If the United States were invaded by any foreign nation and I was forced to move into an underground resistance movement, and I had a choice of one firearm to carry with me, it would be the M-14!
The M16 has finally been pushed to it's technological limits in the form of the current M-16A4. Don't expect to see a newer version. This is it, until some completely new design comes along. Meanwhile, the M-14 inventory is still serving all branches of the armed forces. Granted, some have been refitted with aluminum stocks with pistol grips, sliding shoulder stocks, rail mounts, optics and bipods, while most are practically unchanged such as those found in shipboard armories and war reserve arsenals. All M-14 service rifles today, regardless of configuration, were of the 1.6 million manufactured and delivered by Springfield Armory between 1957 and 1965. Some of the guys carrying M14s in the high mountains of Afghanistan or aboard ships at sea are carrying weapons used by their grandfathers in wars and conflicts from the Dominican Republic to the Vietnam War. Expect them to be around while longer.
Brasstard 7.62 ~~ Good point, but I heard that the actual number of M-14s destroyed was under 200,000, and mainly in the form of rifle parts. About a quarter million were given as military aid to the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithonia, and Estonia, after the Russians pulled out of those countries with all of their small arms following the Soviet collapse. Those latter foreign aid M-14s were said to have been "purchased back" by the Bush administration soon after 9/11 to make up for the shortfall of small arms in a long range, hard hitting caliber needed in Afghanistan. The 750,000 number that you mentioned may include thousands of .45ACP M1A1 Thompson submachine guns and other perfectly good and serviceable weapons. Unfortunately, the Thompsons were dumped in the ocean with great media fanfare. Meanwhile, there seems to be plenty of M-14s in reserve arsenals, aboard ships in the Navy and Military Sealift Command, and in the field downrange. Commercial versions by Springfield Armory and Fulton Armory are said to meet or exceed mil-spec. No doubt they're tooled up for military contracts if and when the need arises.
Richard Najjar they are supposed to destroy more m14s and other weapons from Anniston AL in the 2017 national defense authorization act last I had heard. it's like Ukraine and others destroying Soviet era weapons years ago and now they need them.
@mgibbs88 Well I read that the experience of the American soldiers in WWII showed that the 30-06 was too long and abit too overpowered for a round of its own. Then they had the T20 test rifle and various test batches where 2 candiates were selected the T14 and the T15 from the T44 via the T25/T24 test rifles - the M14 was chosen and if one thinks about it its an M1 but with more clips and a same caliber round but abit shorter whilst still retaining characterisits of a traditional rifle :)
You suspected that only the Thompson machine guns was fully automatic? Nah... this was the absolute best updated version of all.. that includes the Thompson and many more beyond .... even the 8 shot garand
During the Vietnam era and the sixties when this rifle was used by just about everyone like Marine Corps army et cetera cetera was a good rifle had good knock down power it wasn't until ladybird Johnson owned 51 or 52% of colt arms manufacturing That it was taken away is away from us and issued the M16 which was made by Colt how much money do you think ladybird made in her stock by the S the M14 also came with a nylon stop which made it a little bit later a lot of people don't tell you that
Ohhh, I get it now. I agree to some degree (that rhymes! =D). For me the M14 is what happens when the Garand and BAR have a baby... so... yeah. Best rifle ever!
>> I've owned this weapon. It was the best rifle I've ever owned, AFTER you've trained with it! It's a massively powerful weapon that has to be man handled at full auto, and boy does it destroys whatever it hits.
Period films like this are great. All the terminology is correct too. The cutaway animation is surprisingly good, and the oversized model is a nice touch also. Pretty sure the troops were using blanks, therefore we don't see full recoil (also the guy in the foreground on the move was a few feet in front of the guy behind him, which would be a safety no-no). Thanks for posting
I realize that the versatile and easily maintained M-16 is about as much rifle, in terms of how many configurations are possible, as you can get for the money. Still, I grew up in the .30 calibre era and never could get my head around going to war with a .22. Old dogs and new tricks, I guess. I just plain loved the M-14.
Actually, the FAL is good in multiple situations do to its ability to fire full auto and semi auto in different situations; suppressing the enemy or killing them will a disciplined trigger finger.
Anything could replace the M2, it was very long making it poor for urban warfare, yet its low velocity (essentially a super long 9mm) made it poor in medium range engagements. The M3 was a nice close quarter SMG due to the 45ACP power and the small profile, but it had a very slow fire rate. For the needs at that time, the M14 was light enough, powerful enough, and high ROF to play the part of most small arms. Note that the purpose of SMG today is low penetration= low collateral damage.
The M14 and it's many variants (Mk.14 EBR, M21,M39 EMR) are still heavily used today in the US military, they were found to be far more effective at range than the Stoner rifles. The Stoner rifles only replaced the M1A/M14 as the standard infantry rifle, not all together.
@@gijoe5372 You mean you're spreading an "untruth". Please refer to soldiers' experience in Afghanistan and Iraq especially with regards for long distance firing.
The only reason we switched from the m14 to the m16 is for more consistent fire rates and to send more lead down range, you just cant send it with the m14 like you can an m16
At no point did I attack the system all I said is that it was dated. That doesn't mean it is not a still capable and fully functional system. However compared to it's more recent competitors, it is yet again dated. Let me make Myself clear as not to be chastised. IT STILL WORKS, I was merely offering insight to someone who said it should be the standard Infantry rifle, and then was belittled.
It is a real pity that the US Military was so deluded to think the M-14 could replace not just the M1 Garand Service Rifle, but also the BAR LMG, the M1 Carbine, and the M3 SMG. Just the freaking huge size of the Rifle’s gas operation system alone should have been a clue that the BEST that could have been hoped for was to have a base for a LMG, Service Rifle, and MAYBE a Carbine. But given the power of the 7.62x51NATO round, that "carbine," like the current M1A SOCOM, would have a freakishly powerful recoil, making it terribly difficult to control AS a Carbine. As for an LMG, it should have been highly suitable in that capacity with a slightly heavier barrel, and stock-assembly. The Squad Automatic version of the Rifle was a decent try at doing this, but purely a pistol-grip wasn’t really sufficient for a Squad Support Weapon, or LMG. That heavier barrel and stock was really needed, adding at least another 2 - 3 lbs to the Rifle to make it more controllable than the M-14 turned out to be in FA Fire. But getting to the SMG expectation... If the M-14 would have made for a nearly uncontrollable Carbine due to the increased recoil, and decreased weight of a Carbine M-14, then it should have been freakishly obvious that expecting it to replace the M3 Grease Gun was a fantasy to whomever conceived of it. The M2 Carbine provided a base for what could have been a perfectly acceptable SMG by shortening its barrel, and creating a sturdier Folding Stock (Maybe a Folding Stock that folds under and forward, locked on both sides of the rear stock). THAT would have allowed for a more streamlined Logistics Trail, while not expecting stupid things from the M-15 Platform. But ultimately, despite my love of the M1 Garand Platform, which includes the M-14, the development of the AR platform by Stoner meant that the M-14’s life as a Service Rifle was doomed. It is also a pity that the AR-3/AR-11 did not go into production, as they retain a more traditional rifle configuration. The .222 chambered AR-11 could have very easily been converted to 5.56NATO/.223. I wonder if I can find Blueprints for it. It would be an interesting project to try to make one. Using regular resin or Plastic Extruded 3D printing provides a means to test the operation of a Rifle by using just primer powered blanks (and a muzzle-constriction device to simulate a bullet being involved). But that would allow for tolerances to be tested, and for the configuration of things like magazine-fit and round-feeding, as well as the operation of the gas-system.
The M16 took out more VC and NVA than this relic ever did, and is still in use today and in different variations and have been used in Afghanistan, Kuwait, and so many other countries. M14 is too bulky, wood stock shrinks, twists or expands when it rains, hot and warm weather, that affects accuracy, excess weight, too much recoil for the average soldier, snags on vegetation, clunky magazines, and outrageous front sights and bayonet stub that gets caught on branches, over hanging vines etc. the VC and NVA probably looked on in wonder as M14 bullets sprayed trees and ground but missed them and laughed watching US troops closing their eyes while pulling the trigger, bullets punching holes in clouds and tree tops, then Charlie opened up with AK47 and SKS rifles, a weapon that even women and children handled with deadly effect. I’ll take the M16 anytime! Glad they got rid of that dinosaur! Millions of M16 and variants are in active combat use by many nations and police departments, and they use them with deadly force! Took out Bin Laden with an M16 variant by a SEAL team. At home I use a Ruger 10-22 with .22 CCI Stingers for deer, and my Ruger M77 30.06 also, had an M1A, leave it hanging in the gun rack, too many protrusions that can get caught or snagged on things.
i just say M16 JAM! the american M16 and M4 are the worste weapons in the World. we in germany made 2 weapons for you amercians the XM8 and the M416 and then you stole the concept from our m416 and build it into the M27 IAR. but thats not all! before the first world war you copied the Mauser M98! then in another video i saw how you amercians thought about our weapons TO FAST! NOT ACURATE ENAUGHT! but our weapons where acurate and speed was needed to defend other troups!
"This is the M14 rifle. It's pretty much obsolete now we issued it and neglected all the lessons we learned from WW2. All our NATO partners issued rifles that actually clever designed, but we tell you this is the best invention since sliced bread..."
omg you must be kiding yes the americans copied german stuff for example the Nuke, Stealth Bombers and Jet Engine! technicaly an MG can fire an endles long ammunition chain! a stationair Mg uses more then 250 rounds and you can call the M416 or HK416 like you want i call it most time HK M416
The M14 is a great battle rifle. It is accurate, hard hitting, reliable and can reach out to a great distance with more than adequate “take down” power. It is heavier than the more modern AR family of weapons used by the Army and the individual soldier can carry more ammo due to its lighter weight. Due to the power if the 7.62x51 round, the M14 is relatively uncontrollable when used on automatic fire, especially if one trues to fire from the shoulder. The video suggests that the M14 replaces the M1 Garand, the BAR, the M1 Carbine and the M3 Grease Gun. This was a lot of hype to get the M14 approved. A case could be made for it replacing both the M1 Garand and the BAR but no way in hell it would be a good substitute for a Carbine and an M3. These two weapons were not designed as battle rifles and had very different purposes. The carbine was intended to be more of a personal defense type weapon, primarily for use by support troops. The M14 use by support troops put them right back in the same situation the Carbine was meant to avoid. The M3 is a submachine gun. Largely employed by tank and armored crews who need to work within the close confines of their vehicles. It is interesting that these two weapons continued to be in widespread use long after the M14 was pretty much replaced by the M16 platform!
Who's to say there won't be another Vietnam situation? If they are not using full-auto they do still in fact have burst. An that burns through ammo just as quick as full-auto. I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THE 7.62. My favorite rifle is the M1 (.30-06) which is a 7.62x53. I'm saying that now-a-days, it's just not as practical to use. It's a different war in a different environment. Things change and technologies advance, come and go. That's why they come out with smart phones at an absurd rate.
Ammo was the whole reason why I brought up the weight issue. You can carry more ammo with the modern 5.56x45 vs the 7.62x51. Why do you think the Russian use the AK74 now, which fires the 5.45x39mm (smaller than the earlier AK47 again the 7.62 family) Yes, you will probably rarely use full auto, but it's better to have it as an option than not too. Again I have nothing against the 7.62.
Seriously..... name calling? Anyway back to My original point is that mobility is the issue, I've heard of instances where people were shot and didn't go down. But NATO wouldn't have adopted it if it wasn't somewhat effective, by taking down the target I presume you mean stopping power, yes the 7.62x54 does have more stopping power, but again more ammo can be carried using 5.56x45, you'd be surprised how fast it goes. Personally I lkike bigger rounds (i.e. 30-06) which is in the 7.62 family.
The full auto mode was practically disabled and removed because the gun is too light to withstand the recoil! That's why you have the M60 and M240/FN MAG! they're twice as bulky but their keeps the recoil down to a minimun! Also, the M16 and Thompson were designed as the primary infantry automatic weapons. I prefer the Battle rifles, because they punch much further, faster an harder than SMGs/ARs!
@wwood14 The difference actually is not in the propellant, the real change is actually an airspace. The extra half inch of the .30-06 was due to it originally being designed as the .30-03 round for the springfield 1903 rifle. The .30-03 used an outdated, less powerful propellant and was replaced by the .30-06. Since the machines already existed to produce .30-03, they just continued using the cases, with a half inch of space behind the bullet. The M14 round simply does away with the airspace
Just a quick Navy story before I enjoy this vid. In the early '80's I was on the bridge of the USS Kalamazoo, AOR6, during general quarters drills in the N. Atlantic. Someone tossed a bright orange 55gal drum overboard and we cut circles around it at about 600 yards. Each member of the bridgewatch team got to fire 200 rds. of .50 cal from the port bridgewing mount. Well, a thousand rounds later the barrel bobbed along happily unhit by .50 bmg. A young man who had just become a Gunners Mate a couple of weeks before shouldered an M14 and fired three shots at it offhand. He then unloaded and safed his weapon and left the bridge. Yep, thirty seconds later the orange drum sank forever. It was the coolest thing ever.
That’s actually really cool that the M-14’s magazine can sorta function as both a detachable and internal, since you can just push a clip into it. I never even knew that.
"...I don't want no teen-age queen, I just want my M-14."
RobertKaydoo Eskimo pussy is mighty cold.
aha .... your with Private Pyle with jelly donuts hooorraaahhhh !!!
This made my day
I would rather have m16 . M 14 was prety bad
@@reltihfloda7419 um what? lol
As a Seabee this was our camp weapon... they were "a choice" when guarding the camp perimeter... saw a few with synthetic stocks and a 3 round burst function... (S, 3, A)... almost everyone would use the 14 as it was easier to clean and gave you more confidence then the toy like M.16...
I've always loved the performance of the M-14. I used a National Match version both as a member of the California Army National Guard State Rifle Team, and later on Combat Patrols as a SOT-A (Special Operations Team - Alpha) member in Afghanistan. The range and reliability of the M-14 is second to none, and certainly superior in many aspect to the M-4/M-16 series rifle. My 2 cents.
SSG. U.S. Army (Medically Retired) Infantry / Sniper / SOF Intel (SOT-A), multiple tours
"This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me."
Full metal jacket my guy
First dislike
@@crisdropemoff2605 it’s the rifle man creed
Too much tv! Copy cat rhyme
Memories....I watched this and almost fell asleep from the monatone speaker just like when I saw this in the Corps. Some things never change. The M14 / M1a is still an excellent rifle, they just need better training films. Semper Fi
The FAL is superior.
And the ar15 runs circles around them both.
@@dogwater5499 Still, what about the G3?
@@BmorePatriot I don't know what made me comment this, I know shit all about guns.
@@dogwater5499 I bet. How is the FAL superior? Accuracy-wise?
"The Carbon"
But thats how its pronounced in the US of the A
By the narrator
@@moon-5568 I was making a joke lmao
@@moon-5568 Nah its fine
Proud to say I'm one of the last Marines to actually use this weapon system.. Such a great tool :')
In 1968 I took my BCT at Ft. Bragg, NC
We all had to qualify with the M-14, and as
we were in the transition, we also qualified with the M-16A1.
I qualified as Marksman in both.
The M-14 was heavier more rugged, kicked a hell of a lot more, (sometimes a bruise in the arm), but we prefered it than the 16 which we called the Mattel rifle.
Then in 1969 when deployed overseas, we were issued the M-16.
This is prolly my fav military rifle. Looks cool, big rounds, simple.
I trained with the M-14 in basic. Then went I got to Vietnam, i was given the M-16 rifle, 1967-70.
@Thane Mac The M-16, because it is light...however, it did jam on me. The M-14 was too big, and I never did like that big magazine.
Thanks for uploading this! Never saw this one. A superb and beautiful rifle- saved my Dad's life from Da Nang to A Shau.
checkmate makes great 25 round magazines for the civilian version, m1a1 Springfields
Nice channel. Congratulations!
I just finished building a 1/3 scale model of the M14 and got curious about it. Thanks for such an awesome, educational video!
The M-14 KICKS ASS!!! I just LOVE the way that rifle looks too!
It look like the M1 garand but with a magazine and without the ping action
Untill you faced an AK in a jungle
@@balthazarvanovermeire7271 lol the m14 is better than the Kalashnikov in every way.....
@@gunfuego than why did the Americans use the ak's they found in Vietnam and did they not keep their m14
@@balthazarvanovermeire7271 I think you have the M14 confused with the M16, and even then it's hearsay.... The M14 is a robust, reliable and accurate firearm more so than the cheap Chinese Kalashnikov copies that were used in the Vietnam war...
old but Gold. reliability wise, tested and proven in the field.
Not to start an argument, you are correct in saying that, 3 are taken off if your enemy cares about its soldiers, if they are prepared to die honorably on a battlefield, then most likely the enemy will not care for the wound and fight as their companions lay dying.
A gun is a gun, and bullets are bullets. The trade-off of ballistics and power is equal between these rounds, therefore both should be feared equally. It's much easier to engage multiple targets (lethally) and at a much longer range than an AK. Like I said it's a trade-off.. Both weapons in the hands of an expert are just as deadly as the other.
Load from the top? Wow!!! They must anticipated California’s gun control laws. 🤣🤣. I bet this gun would’ve dominated Vietnam War if chambered in 7.92x33 ( STG 44 ).
I've heard people claim this gun is "delicate", meaning its unreliable and easily broken. I'm somewhat skeptical...considering its based on Garand action, which has proven itself to be rugged and reliable.
Delicate? Really? I wonder if they carried it any where in harm's way?
Best battle rifle the U.S. ever produced. It simply came around at the wrong period of time.
Olds school is the best.
Yes
That is why they are phased out. So cool that they are less effective.
The way they hold it prone looks like a good way to pinch the fingers, I've done it with the Garand.
technically no, it'd be the first battle rifle because of the size of the cartridge, the first real military assault rifle would be the m16
The switch from the 7.62 M14 to the 5.56 M16 was made by the U.S. forces because it was decided long ago that a high powered rifle wasn't needed for most field operations. The newer weapon and its ammo are lighter, cheaper, easier to carry, and more manageable in rapid fire situations. The 62gr 5.56 round has enough power to pierce a standard infantry helmet at 600m, and no less lethal than the 7.62 in anti-personnel ops.
So optimistic.
Honestly when you compare it to almost all AR10 rifles it’s still better. I’d rather have a rifle that works and gets consistent hits on target, than have a rifle that shoots smaller groups whenever it’s not jammed up or broken.
If the United States were invaded by any foreign nation and I was forced to move into an underground resistance movement, and I had a choice of one firearm to carry with me, it would be the M-14!
The M16 has finally been pushed to it's technological limits in the form of the current M-16A4. Don't expect to see a newer version. This is it, until some completely new design comes along.
Meanwhile, the M-14 inventory is still serving all branches of the armed forces. Granted, some have been refitted with aluminum stocks with pistol grips, sliding shoulder stocks, rail mounts, optics and bipods, while most are practically unchanged such as those found in shipboard armories and war reserve arsenals.
All M-14 service rifles today, regardless of configuration, were of the 1.6 million manufactured and delivered by Springfield Armory between 1957 and 1965. Some of the guys carrying M14s in the high mountains of Afghanistan or aboard ships at sea are carrying weapons used by their grandfathers in wars and conflicts from the Dominican Republic to the Vietnam War. Expect them to be around while longer.
Richard Najjar unfortunately 750,000 of them destroyed in 1990s by clinton
Brasstard 7.62 ~~ Good point, but I heard that the actual number of M-14s destroyed was under 200,000, and mainly in the form of rifle parts. About a quarter million were given as military aid to the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithonia, and Estonia, after the Russians pulled out of those countries with all of their small arms following the Soviet collapse. Those latter foreign aid M-14s were said to have been "purchased back" by the Bush administration soon after 9/11 to make up for the shortfall of small arms in a long range, hard hitting caliber needed in Afghanistan. The 750,000 number that you mentioned may include thousands of .45ACP M1A1 Thompson submachine guns and other perfectly good and serviceable weapons. Unfortunately, the Thompsons were dumped in the ocean with great media fanfare.
Meanwhile, there seems to be plenty of M-14s in reserve arsenals, aboard ships in the Navy and Military Sealift Command, and in the field downrange. Commercial versions by Springfield Armory and Fulton Armory are said to meet or exceed mil-spec. No doubt they're tooled up for military contracts if and when the need arises.
Richard Najjar they are supposed to destroy more m14s and other weapons from Anniston AL in the 2017 national defense authorization act last I had heard. it's like Ukraine and others destroying Soviet era weapons years ago and now they need them.
It has farm from reached it's limit, on the contrary. It's just getting started
They are still using the m14 because they're still around or else they stop producing em because their shit rifle for combat
@mgibbs88 Well I read that the experience of the American soldiers in WWII showed that the 30-06 was too long and abit too overpowered for a round of its own. Then they had the T20 test rifle and various test batches where 2 candiates were selected the T14 and the T15 from the T44 via the T25/T24 test rifles - the M14 was chosen and if one thinks about it its an M1 but with more clips and a same caliber round but abit shorter whilst still retaining characterisits of a traditional rifle :)
In combat im not going to waste time to put the safety on when loading a mag, you can say what you want i dont care, wont change my mind.
3:38 "Fluted" brass?? Hmmm...never seen that before 😎
By far my favorite rifle of all times, I want one.
never knew it was fully automatic. Cool
You suspected that only the Thompson machine guns was fully automatic? Nah... this was the absolute best updated version of all.. that includes the Thompson and many more beyond .... even the 8 shot garand
During the Vietnam era and the sixties when this rifle was used by just about everyone like Marine Corps army et cetera cetera was a good rifle had good knock down power it wasn't until ladybird Johnson owned 51 or 52% of colt arms manufacturing That it was taken away is away from us and issued the M16 which was made by Colt how much money do you think ladybird made in her stock by the S the M14 also came with a nylon stop which made it a little bit later a lot of people don't tell you that
Ohhh, I get it now. I agree to some degree (that rhymes! =D). For me the M14 is what happens when the Garand and BAR have a baby... so... yeah. Best rifle ever!
Having all that power I just cant help but feel a little safer just sayin!
I'm lucky and just get my M14 yesterday :D
Very cool video .. Thanks for sharing
in the '60s, I had a toy one, made by Marx
Oof
THIS IS MY RIFLE< THERE ARE MANY MORE LIKE IT BUT THIS ONE IS MINE~
I own one of these and it is a must have rifle.
The only weapon I ever used and gave it back to the US Army, where it belongs. Ya dream of deer hunting with an M14 Doncha’ Yahoo?
>> I've owned this weapon. It was the best rifle I've ever owned, AFTER you've trained with it! It's a massively powerful weapon that has to be man handled at full auto, and boy does it destroys whatever it hits.
I like how the rifle shown at 4:19 has a high wood stock that covers most of the oprod, Dont see that anymore.
this video gave me more thorough training on the m14 than the marine corps ever gave me about the m16. ...in 2005
Period films like this are great. All the terminology is correct too. The cutaway animation is surprisingly good, and the oversized model is a nice touch also. Pretty sure the troops were using blanks, therefore we don't see full recoil (also the guy in the foreground on the move was a few feet in front of the guy behind him, which would be a safety no-no). Thanks for posting
I realize that the versatile and easily maintained M-16 is about as much rifle, in terms of how many configurations are possible, as you can get for the money. Still, I grew up in the .30 calibre era and never could get my head around going to war with a .22. Old dogs and new tricks, I guess. I just plain loved the M-14.
I bought a brand new M1A Scout for $1400, but looking back, maybe I should have gotten the full length M1A. I dunno. :(
Pretty kewl, no tools needed. I used to do this blind folder.
Ahh, a classic in the world of battle rifles.
Has anybody noticed that the cabin in the new Evil Dead movie is the same cabin from the beginning of Army of Darkness
Actually, the FAL is good in multiple situations do to its ability to fire full auto and semi auto in different situations; suppressing the enemy or killing them will a disciplined trigger finger.
The m14 is the sexiest weapon out their my favourite gun THX for the info
they should make the m14 the standard infantry gun, men need to be strong from carrying the weight and man u from its recoil
Brings me back. A+
in Korea in 62-63 , fired the m 14 a lot , never jamed , any malfunction , m1 on striods ....
So even back then the stripper clips were anything but smooth
Anything could replace the M2, it was very long making it poor for urban warfare, yet its low velocity (essentially a super long 9mm) made it poor in medium range engagements. The M3 was a nice close quarter SMG due to the 45ACP power and the small profile, but it had a very slow fire rate. For the needs at that time, the M14 was light enough, powerful enough, and high ROF to play the part of most small arms.
Note that the purpose of SMG today is low penetration= low collateral damage.
"A lightweight shoulder weapon," yeah right
Great video on a great American weapon !!
The best Battle Rifle ever made. Best combination of all Firepower,Accuracy,Dependability. A true combat vets favorite.
yup, funny how they designed the safety, right by the trigger
Thanks!
The M14 and it's many variants (Mk.14 EBR, M21,M39 EMR) are still heavily used today in the US military, they were found to be far more effective at range than the Stoner rifles. The Stoner rifles only replaced the M1A/M14 as the standard infantry rifle, not all together.
Ur spewing lies
@@gijoe5372 are you seriously replying to a 5 year old comment?
Yeah i am because it's the 1st comment I saw and I had to spread the truth
@@gijoe5372 You mean you're spreading an "untruth". Please refer to soldiers' experience in Afghanistan and Iraq especially with regards for long distance firing.
Actually the m110a1 has replaced the m14
The only reason we switched from the m14 to the m16 is for more consistent fire rates and to send more lead down range, you just cant send it with the m14 like you can an m16
When im old enough ima buy a m1a ;)
And again I can say that germans took the credit of having the first assault rifle even though the cei-rigotti and fedrov avtomat was far before it
Id take it over any m16 or any other weapon. Worked well in VN, despite what they say. More stopping power too.
I used this gun in 1979 during recruit training
Complicated to field strip (relatively speaking) compared to the L1A1
Nope, not when you know what your doing
ahh i love old military videos
Who needs CGI when you have animation like this!
i love this gun to death
Call me crazy, but I don't see how the M14 could replace the role of the M3 subgun or the M2 Carbine.
At no point did I attack the system all I said is that it was dated. That doesn't mean it is not a still capable and fully functional system. However compared to it's more recent competitors, it is yet again dated. Let me make Myself clear as not to be chastised. IT STILL WORKS, I was merely offering insight to someone who said it should be the standard Infantry rifle, and then was belittled.
Actually it's "I don't want no teenage queen, I just want my M14."
This was just what I was looking for, thanks.
Did it just say there were similar ballistics between the 308 and 3006? 😤
The m14 is a lousy service rifle
best rifle ever made.... the first choice of the expert and the novice alike.
I love her, my M-14 😍😍😍
its not hard to control it just takes some getting used to
These vintage videos are awesome
It is a real pity that the US Military was so deluded to think the M-14 could replace not just the M1 Garand Service Rifle, but also the BAR LMG, the M1 Carbine, and the M3 SMG.
Just the freaking huge size of the Rifle’s gas operation system alone should have been a clue that the BEST that could have been hoped for was to have a base for a LMG, Service Rifle, and MAYBE a Carbine.
But given the power of the 7.62x51NATO round, that "carbine," like the current M1A SOCOM, would have a freakishly powerful recoil, making it terribly difficult to control AS a Carbine.
As for an LMG, it should have been highly suitable in that capacity with a slightly heavier barrel, and stock-assembly. The Squad Automatic version of the Rifle was a decent try at doing this, but purely a pistol-grip wasn’t really sufficient for a Squad Support Weapon, or LMG. That heavier barrel and stock was really needed, adding at least another 2 - 3 lbs to the Rifle to make it more controllable than the M-14 turned out to be in FA Fire.
But getting to the SMG expectation... If the M-14 would have made for a nearly uncontrollable Carbine due to the increased recoil, and decreased weight of a Carbine M-14, then it should have been freakishly obvious that expecting it to replace the M3 Grease Gun was a fantasy to whomever conceived of it. The M2 Carbine provided a base for what could have been a perfectly acceptable SMG by shortening its barrel, and creating a sturdier Folding Stock (Maybe a Folding Stock that folds under and forward, locked on both sides of the rear stock).
THAT would have allowed for a more streamlined Logistics Trail, while not expecting stupid things from the M-15 Platform.
But ultimately, despite my love of the M1 Garand Platform, which includes the M-14, the development of the AR platform by Stoner meant that the M-14’s life as a Service Rifle was doomed.
It is also a pity that the AR-3/AR-11 did not go into production, as they retain a more traditional rifle configuration. The .222 chambered AR-11 could have very easily been converted to 5.56NATO/.223.
I wonder if I can find Blueprints for it. It would be an interesting project to try to make one. Using regular resin or Plastic Extruded 3D printing provides a means to test the operation of a Rifle by using just primer powered blanks (and a muzzle-constriction device to simulate a bullet being involved). But that would allow for tolerances to be tested, and for the configuration of things like magazine-fit and round-feeding, as well as the operation of the gas-system.
The M16 took out more VC and NVA than this relic ever did, and is still in use today and in different variations and have been used in Afghanistan, Kuwait, and so many other countries. M14 is too bulky, wood stock shrinks, twists or expands when it rains, hot and warm weather, that affects accuracy, excess weight, too much recoil for the average soldier, snags on vegetation, clunky magazines, and outrageous front sights and bayonet stub that gets caught on branches, over hanging vines etc. the VC and NVA probably looked on in wonder as M14 bullets sprayed trees and ground but missed them and laughed watching US troops closing their eyes while pulling the trigger, bullets punching holes in clouds and tree tops, then Charlie opened up with AK47 and SKS rifles, a weapon that even women and children handled with deadly effect. I’ll take the M16 anytime! Glad they got rid of that dinosaur! Millions of M16 and variants are in active combat use by many nations and police departments, and they use them with deadly force! Took out Bin Laden with an M16 variant by a SEAL team. At home I use a Ruger 10-22 with .22 CCI Stingers for deer, and my Ruger M77 30.06 also, had an M1A, leave it hanging in the gun rack, too many protrusions that can get caught or snagged on things.
i just say M16 JAM!
the american M16 and M4 are the worste weapons in the World. we in germany made 2 weapons for you amercians the XM8 and the M416 and then you stole the concept from our m416 and build it into the M27 IAR.
but thats not all! before the first world war you copied the Mauser M98!
then in another video i saw how you amercians thought about our weapons
TO FAST! NOT ACURATE ENAUGHT! but our weapons where acurate and speed was needed to defend other troups!
2:08 well that aged like milk
"This is the M14 rifle. It's pretty much obsolete now we issued it and neglected all the lessons we learned from WW2. All our NATO partners issued rifles that actually clever designed, but we tell you this is the best invention since sliced bread..."
if the m14 saw ww2, Jesus, we would of rocked
omg you must be kiding yes the americans copied german stuff for example the Nuke, Stealth Bombers and Jet Engine! technicaly an MG can fire an endles long ammunition chain! a stationair Mg uses more then 250 rounds and you can call the M416 or HK416 like you want i call it most time HK M416
The M14 is a great battle rifle. It is accurate, hard hitting, reliable and can reach out to a great distance with more than adequate “take down” power. It is heavier than the more modern AR family of weapons used by the Army and the individual soldier can carry more ammo due to its lighter weight. Due to the power if the 7.62x51 round, the M14 is relatively uncontrollable when used on automatic fire, especially if one trues to fire from the shoulder. The video suggests that the M14 replaces the M1 Garand, the BAR, the M1 Carbine and the M3 Grease Gun. This was a lot of hype to get the M14 approved. A case could be made for it replacing both the M1 Garand and the BAR but no way in hell it would be a good substitute for a Carbine and an M3. These two weapons were not designed as battle rifles and had very different purposes. The carbine was intended to be more of a personal defense type weapon, primarily for use by support troops. The M14 use by support troops put them right back in the same situation the Carbine was meant to avoid. The M3 is a submachine gun. Largely employed by tank and armored crews who need to work within the close confines of their vehicles. It is interesting that these two weapons continued to be in widespread use long after the M14 was pretty much replaced by the M16 platform!
Ah, when America was in its golden age.
Who's to say there won't be another Vietnam situation? If they are not using full-auto they do still in fact have burst. An that burns through ammo just as quick as full-auto. I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THE 7.62. My favorite rifle is the M1 (.30-06) which is a 7.62x53. I'm saying that now-a-days, it's just not as practical to use. It's a different war in a different environment. Things change and technologies advance, come and go. That's why they come out with smart phones at an absurd rate.
Ammo was the whole reason why I brought up the weight issue. You can carry more ammo with the modern 5.56x45 vs the 7.62x51. Why do you think the Russian use the AK74 now, which fires the 5.45x39mm (smaller than the earlier AK47 again the 7.62 family) Yes, you will probably rarely use full auto, but it's better to have it as an option than not too. Again I have nothing against the 7.62.
Seriously..... name calling? Anyway back to My original point is that mobility is the issue, I've heard of instances where people were shot and didn't go down. But NATO wouldn't have adopted it if it wasn't somewhat effective, by taking down the target I presume you mean stopping power, yes the 7.62x54 does have more stopping power, but again more ammo can be carried using 5.56x45, you'd be surprised how fast it goes. Personally I lkike bigger rounds (i.e. 30-06) which is in the 7.62 family.
The full auto mode was practically disabled and removed because the gun is too light to withstand the recoil! That's why you have the M60 and M240/FN MAG! they're twice as bulky but their keeps the recoil down to a minimun! Also, the M16 and Thompson were designed as the primary infantry automatic weapons. I prefer the Battle rifles, because they punch much further, faster an harder than SMGs/ARs!
@wwood14 The difference actually is not in the propellant, the real change is actually an airspace. The extra half inch of the .30-06 was due to it originally being designed as the .30-03 round for the springfield 1903 rifle. The .30-03 used an outdated, less powerful propellant and was replaced by the .30-06. Since the machines already existed to produce .30-03, they just continued using the cases, with a half inch of space behind the bullet. The M14 round simply does away with the airspace
2:09 The role of all the service weapons into one, very few folks know this. I wonder if they knew that the BAR would come back as the (ugly) HCAR.