The one link between the M1 Garand and the M14, that was not mentioned,is the BM 59. Which was developed right after WW2. The Italians converted M1 block clip feed Garands to taking detachable 20 round 30-06 box magazine. I believe the box magazine was an altered B.A.R. magazine. Either way the M14 is a historic piece of American ordinance at its best. God Bless America!
I trained with the M-14 in the USMC at Paris Island and Camp Lejeune. The rifle was unbelievably accurate and we qualified at 500 yards (with iron sights, of course). The transition to the M-16 happened in about 1969 and that's what we carried in Viet Nam. The only thing that I preferred about the M-16 was the weight advantage over the M-14.
I think people forget how incredibly bad the first iteration of the m16 was. Everyone pictures a modern AR with tall irons, but it was not at all that - it was worse than not free floated, nor was it was particularly reliable. Meanwhile, they judge the m14 by a war it wasn't made for and hold the original design to modern standards. The m14 requires you to know what you're doing (and it'll cost $$$) but just like a modern AR it can be brought up to the present and can do everything a modern AR can.
As far as the fiberglass stocks they were issued. My 8 years at sea with the US Navy, from 75-83 we had fiberglass stocks in the ship armories. The M-14 was standard issue rifles onboard ships well into the 90’s.
Back in the 1980s when I was active US Navy, I signed up for a week of tryouts for the Navy rifle and pistol team. We used National Match grade, SA made M14s. They selected top 12 scores + 2 alternates =14 for the rifle team. I ranked 17. I missed making the team by a very small margin. Oh well, I still love the M14.
The M-1 Garand began by looking more like the M-14, with full Box mags but the "powers that be," inc. the QM and Ordinance Corps (pro: "core," just helping) hurt in production. They also went away from 10 round en bloc, on the M-1, in .286 to 30-06. Ugh! We would have had the M-14, better & sooner, imo, were Stoner+ listened to and box mags used.
I got the ptr imo best clone there is. But the fal is by far superior. I had the centerfold from blue press of it on my walls with other iconic weapons of such I approved of. Think I still have it somewhere.
I always heard how much more accurate the M14 was than the FAL. Then you see in testing the FAL was just as accurate as the M14. I had already come to that conclusion on my own comparing my M1As to my FALs & L1A1s back in the 80s-90s.
@@donwyoming1936 guy at my club loved his fal over him m14. He said the 14 had to be cleaned whereas the fal said always shot better with the barrel left dirty.
The Air Force and Coast Guard didn't adopt the M14 as standard. The M14 remained Navy standard into the 1980's. Some Army National Guard units went from the M1 Rifle directly to the M16A2 in the 1990's. The Alaska Scouts were using the M1917 Rifle and finally swapped to the M16A2 around the turn of the century. It takes time to swap out weapons in peacetime, especially in smaller, obscure units.
@@brinsonharris9816 Honor guards do their own things, depending on what they can obtain. My younger brother's honor guard was Air Force Reserve and used M14's--other Air Force or Air National Guard used M1 rifles. The Marine honor guard for my eldest brother used M16A2 rifles and were active-duty Marine--the year was 2008. I dimly remember M14 rifles that the US Army honor guard fired in 1969 for my father's funeral.
Great information. I have always been a fan of John Garand's proginy be it the M1 to the M14 type rifle as I own a Garand, two M1A National Match rifles as well as a Scout Squad and SOCOM 16. Nothing like .30 caliber bang bang.
There were slotted fiberglass hand guards that were replaced early on due to breaking and allowing a "Heat Mirage", with protracted firing. Nice program
Beretta developed the best advancement of the M1Garand by adding a box magazine to it, and changing it to 7.62 x 51 was a good balance of power and portability. We should have adapted it instead of
The problem is the 30 caliber round is too darn expensive. The 556 will get the job done at $.40 a round. That’s a heck of a lot less than $1.50 to 2 dollars a round. Remember as a civilian, we probably need 500 yards or less for defense purposes. More like 300 yards. The 556 even in carbine version will stay lethal out to 400 yards, that being having enough velocity to cause catastrophic wounding affects in order to stop a threat. How do we know it works? We have tons of police civilian shootings of criminals to prove that inside 300 yards, the round and rifles is absolutely more than capable of defending the home. The trouble is you need to be able to afford to train with that and also be able to carry it physically. I just don’t think an M1 Garand or M14 can be used effectively used by the elderly, women, teenagers, etc. An AR 15 that is under 10 pounds in weight, with an adjustable stock, however yes. Sadly, what is right for the military is not always right for the civilian market. The military demographic works out very hard physically, and is young. Therefore, you can give them very heavy equipment. I would argue anyone past 40 will need an AR 15.
Never been created in the first place? Why has it been re-deployed and redeployed? One reason is that a 5.56 based AR platform is not an open country gun. It wasn't getting the job done in the SWA and I have several family-based factual accounts that being true. The M1A/M14 is an excellent "battle rifle," if you will. It was the wrong tool for Vietnam, but it is still the right tool for many applications. Thumbs down on this one.
It was always a stop gap. It was never issued because it was the best, just that it was available. Now that we have other options, the M14 is a paperweight. The M110s have every functional advantage over the M14. We were issued M14s in McMillan stocks as DMRs, but they didn't work well in the desert. The open receiver invited grit into the bolt and FCG, and the grease on the bolt roller and other critical components turned into an abrasive sludge. The poor bastards that carried them also had to carry an M4 with at least six mags because the M14 wasn't reliable enough to be a primary weapon. For all the supposed service the M14 saw, it was issued but rarely saw real use. The M14 spent most of its "service" in a soft case in the back of the Humvee with cases of Cope Long Cut and bottled water. It was serialized gear, so it had to be present for weapons counts, but we hated the things and left them in the Humvees whenever we could get away with it.
Meant to replace the M1, BAR, M3 sub gun - completely failed in that. You’re correct it should have never been made - Col Rene Studler - head of US Ordinance. - had a bad case of “Not Made Here” blinders on. Went as far as to sendStoner and crew what amounted to proof ammo for AR10 trials causing catastrophic failure.
Studler's problem was more than just the "Not Invented Here" blinkers. He and the army brass were trying to invent a modern rifle using First World War parameters. The Germans went developed the the intermediate cartridge after a careful study that showed their troops were almost never firing their Kar98K's beyond 300m. Moreover, whenever they moved their machine guns, the volume of fire in the section and platoon went down drastically. The understood that what was required was a selective fire weapon that was effective to at least 300m. The Germans got that in the MP43/44/STG44, and the Russians figured this out very quickly as well. The US however, got a rifle that was obsolete from the moment it was born.
It wasn't meant to replace the smg. It was an outdated concept to replace the BAR which was already a pretty bad lmg compared to the bren and mg42 lmg and pkm
Just as Mr Small Arms Solutions UA-cam channel defined the evil of Col. Studler and band of obsolete officers wanting to keep the M14 in production no matter what.....
It was designed based on WW2 experience. However that was a handicap and still is a handicap. Intermediate cartridge technology and real world battlefield experience were ignored. That's why the M-14 is the shortest serving main battle rifle in US history. Meanwhile the M-16 is the longest serving standard rifle even in Carbine configuration.
The M14 program was cancelled before all of the bugs could be worked out. The M1923 cartridge belt (ten pockets with straps for M1903 rifle clips) were still being issued when units began receiving the M14 and period photos showing off the new M14 exist with the riflemen wearing M1923 belts. Sometime around 1943 the M1923 was simplified to the M1938 pattern without an internal retainer strap for the five-shot stripper clips used for the M1903. New web gear for the M14 rifle was made in 1956 patterns (US Army) and 1961 patterns (USMC) but by 1966 the M16 rifle was issued in large numbers to American troops in Vietnam and the web gear had to be changed almost before the manufacturing contracts for M14 web gear had been completed.
I qualified on the M-14 only 10 years ago for Military Sealift command Navy ships manned by Civilians. Not sure if they are still using it but I was endorsed to fire warning shots at that time . U.S. Naval Academy switched from M-1 s to M-14 for marching but they are All inoperative .
I believe my M1A is a fantastic rifle, but I wouldn’t want to carry it rabbit hunting. I suspect the M14’s downfall was it was a poor choice for the majority of its missions in Vietnam. It appears to me during WW2 it was realized the M1 was just too big to be as effective for a lot of missions, so they handed soldiers carbines. A little more effort was made to match the gun with the situation. The other thing that happens is armies change their fighting tactics to better cope with weapons they face. If there were no more M14 style weapons, I would bet a situation would arise where they were really needed.
These babies got awful expensive which I grabbed one for the 1200$ years back for Rockford or Springfield armory one? What they fetch now if 3k by me is insane. Love the caliber. Loved the gun. 😢
The Brits had the right idea with their .280. If we had had that round with the FAL, as originally intended, it would have been a world beater. Oh well. Politics and ass kissers rule the day.
More StG 44 rifles were made than M1918-series Browning Automatic Rifles (BAR). Here is a forgotten fact--Garand's rifle was intended to replace the BAR, the few Thompsons that the Army wound up with, as well as the M1903 rifle (800,000 on hand in 1941) and the World War One M1917 (2,000,000 on hand in 1941 equipping the National Guard of the United States, the Army of the Philippines, and Britian's Home Guard). Also in 1941 the M1 Carbine was rapidly developed to replace most pistols, the Thompson submachine gun, and because the Garand was a handful many frontline troops got some of the six million Carbines made during WW2. I read that about 4 million M1 rifles were made during WW2 and then another million plus made in America during Korea, with Beretta making more. (slightly more than a million m14 rifles were made) --Beretta's BM59 was what the M14 should have been. As it was the M14 was slightly heavier and larger than the M1 Rifle, and it was supposed to replace the M1 Rifle, the M1/M2 carbine, the M3 submachine gun (Thompsons were supposed to have been removed), and the BAR. The M1 was supposed to replace the BAR and submachine gun, too. The M14 was no submachine gun. The M1 Carbine was almost a foot shorter than the M1 Rifle, cost half as much as the M1 Rifle, weighed half as much as the M1 Rifle, and had half the effective range of the M1 Rifle--the M14 was a poor replacement for the M2 Carbine.
God must love small arms because he works in mysterious ways. Post WWII the evolution of the calibers ended us with both 5.56 and 7.62. As Forrest said, “Mama said 5.56 is the best. Lieutenant Dan said 7.62 is the best. I think it could be both.”
I wondered what if we adopted the AR10 instead of the m16 and used 308 necked down brittish 7mm? We went backwards adopting 556 but untill afghan war we needed a better intermediate caliber... Lol
The fact remains that the average soldier never shoots more than 300 meters. The 5.56 fulfills this role quite well. What our military lacks is flexibility in small arms. A number of specially trained troops should have the option to carry an AR-10 when circumstances dictate it. There's no need to adopt a new rifle. There is no need to adopt a new cartridge. We already had what we needed. We chose not to use them.
Congratulations on pronouncing John Garand's name CORRECTLY! (Although Mr. Garand himself pronounced it with a bit of a French accent - he being a French-Canadian by birth.) Also, it was a joy to hear your mention of Hugo Schmeisser and his contribution to the AK-47. Schmeisser was actually working for the Haenel Company where he developed the sub-machine gun that bore his name (unofficially, as it was officially referred to as the Haenel). But Schmeisser himself, working for Haenel, became very skilled in the use of stamped and welded sheet metal in sub gun manufacturer, replacing forged and milled steel billets. At the conclusion of WWII, a most German techniques and manufacturing processes, as well as the engineering and manufacturing talent, were swept up by the Allies and put to work in advancing those countries' defense projects. Hugo Schmeisser found himself in the part of Germany that fell under the Soviets as part of East Germany. So Herr Schmeisser found himself relocated to Russia, where he worked in their arms industry. Mikhail Kalashnikov designed the original AK-47 to have a stamped, folded, and welded receiver. He did so while assigned to a sort of R&D company, and used the material sources available to him through that company. The AK-47 as originally adopted required a high-grade of sheet steel for the fabrication of the receiver. After adoption by the Soviet Union, other Russian arms manufacturers were put to work building this new rifle, and sourced their raw materials from the "normal" Russian suppliers (who were not technically as capable as producing the sheet steel required for the AK-47 receiver). As a result the original AK-47s were prone to failing. As a stopgap measure they converted the AK-47 from a sheet steel receiver to a forged and milled receiver. This was the norm for several years. However, recognizing the skills possessed by Hugo Schmeisser, they assigned to Schmeisser the task of bringing Russian sheet steel manufacturing abilities up to the standards required for AK-47 manufacture.
I actually do not see a problem with the M-14 other than its chambering of a full power cartridge. Honestly, I think it is a better (lighter) rifle than the. Save for it's outdated wooden furniture and individual preferences for pistol grip ergonomics, I don't see it as inferior to the FAL or G3.
Great video man! Loved it. One thing though. You realize that you pronounce "corp" incorrectly right? Marine "corp," and ordinance "corp." You said it so many times and wrong every time. Couldn't not let you know. Hope you don't take it wrong.
The M1 Garand was never reliable in combat. It proved to be a huge headache at the beginning of the war in Africa. Dozens of modifications were made and grease was issued. But these never did solve the reliability issues. It faired better in Europe, but rust & swelling wood stocks proved to be a huge headache in the Pacific. We look back at the rifle fondly, but it was a unreliable in combat & prone to parts failures.
Now I KNOW you never served in our military. Similar to calling a Marine an “ex Marine”, miss pronouncing Marine Corps as “Marine Corpse” is highly disrespectful to any Marine and I’m just a retired Army Grunt (Infantryman). And yes, I used the M-21 as a sniper in the mid 80’s and she can perform well in that role but it requires a LOT of additional tuning to achieve those results, we should’ve just stuck with the Remington 700 like the Marines did.
The downfall was the result of Curtis LeMay to have a lightweight weapon for his candy ass airmen and the fact that the RVNs were too light in the sneakers to carry such a fine weapon.
M14 is chambered in 30 06. M14 has a " Brother From Another Mother " called BM59 which is chambered in 7.62X51 NATO. BM59 also 3 shot burst not full auto like M14. Both M14 / BM59 needed Foward Assist. Tom Cruise in " Born on the Fourth of July " ended up in a wheel-chair cause his M14 jammed up cause M14 doesn't have Foward Assist.
@@Hornet135 M14 is chambered in 30 06 ( 30 Odd 6 ) . BM59 is chambered in 7.62X51 NATO. BM59 is a " 3 Shot Burst " while M14 is Full Auto. For some reason Yanks made their 1st Battle Rifle in 30 06 While Belgium, Spain, Germany and Switzerland made their Batlle Rifles in 7.62X51 NATO.
@@anish-79 You are wrong. The M1 Garand was .30-06, but the M14 was 7.62 NATO. It was the US that pushed NATO towards 7.62 NATO and then adopted the M14 in 7.62 NATO.
Never been made? That's like saying the Garand should have bever been made. Only one thing wrong with the M1A and that the cost to assemble one nowadays is ridiculous.
The one link between the M1 Garand and the M14, that was not mentioned,is the BM 59. Which was developed right after WW2. The Italians converted M1 block clip feed Garands to taking detachable 20 round 30-06 box magazine. I believe the box magazine was an altered B.A.R. magazine.
Either way the M14 is a historic piece of American ordinance at its best.
God Bless America!
I trained with the M-14 in the USMC at Paris Island and Camp Lejeune. The rifle was unbelievably accurate and we qualified at 500 yards (with iron sights, of course). The transition to the M-16 happened in about 1969 and that's what we carried in Viet Nam. The only thing that I preferred about the M-16 was the weight advantage over the M-14.
Thank you for your service
I think people forget how incredibly bad the first iteration of the m16 was. Everyone pictures a modern AR with tall irons, but it was not at all that - it was worse than not free floated, nor was it was particularly reliable. Meanwhile, they judge the m14 by a war it wasn't made for and hold the original design to modern standards.
The m14 requires you to know what you're doing (and it'll cost $$$) but just like a modern AR it can be brought up to the present and can do everything a modern AR can.
Trained on the M-14 in Army basic training in 1968. It was heavy but damned accurate. Shot expert with it.
THE M 1 A IS LIKE A CLASSIC MUSCLE CAR IT WILL ALWAYS HAVE A PLACE AND ALWAYS BE COOL........
As far as the fiberglass stocks they were issued. My 8 years at sea with the US Navy, from 75-83 we had fiberglass stocks in the ship armories. The M-14 was standard issue rifles onboard ships well into the 90’s.
The fiberglass stock makes the M14 a perfect battle rifle.
Back in the 1980s when I was active US Navy, I signed up for a week of tryouts for the Navy rifle and pistol team. We used National Match grade, SA made M14s. They selected top 12 scores + 2 alternates =14 for the rifle team. I ranked 17. I missed making the team by a very small margin. Oh well, I still love the M14.
1977-81 in the US Navy the ship’s rifles were the M-14 with fiberglass stocks. Qualified on the rifle annually
My dad has a Chicom Polytech M1A. He can shoot 2 inch groups at 1000 meters with iron sights and GI ammo. He loves that rifle.
The M-1 Garand began by looking more like the M-14, with full Box mags but the "powers that be," inc. the QM and Ordinance Corps (pro: "core," just helping) hurt in production. They also went away from 10 round en bloc, on the M-1, in .286 to 30-06. Ugh! We would have had the M-14, better & sooner, imo, were Stoner+ listened to and box mags used.
The 276 M1 had so much potential. Far more svelte than the 30-06 Garand.
@@donwyoming1936 Definitely!
Shoulda went with the right arm of the free world, the FN FAL.
I got the ptr imo best clone there is. But the fal is by far superior. I had the centerfold from blue press of it on my walls with other iconic weapons of such I approved of. Think I still have it somewhere.
I always heard how much more accurate the M14 was than the FAL. Then you see in testing the FAL was just as accurate as the M14.
I had already come to that conclusion on my own comparing my M1As to my FALs & L1A1s back in the 80s-90s.
@@donwyoming1936 guy at my club loved his fal over him m14. He said the 14 had to be cleaned whereas the fal said always shot better with the barrel left dirty.
In the Navy we had m 14's with the fiberglass stocks onboard ship. I qualified with the m 14 during my time numerous times.
The Air Force and Coast Guard didn't adopt the M14 as standard. The M14 remained Navy standard into the 1980's. Some Army National Guard units went from the M1 Rifle directly to the M16A2 in the 1990's. The Alaska Scouts were using the M1917 Rifle and finally swapped to the M16A2 around the turn of the century. It takes time to swap out weapons in peacetime, especially in smaller, obscure units.
I attended the funeral of a 30+ year USAF vet at a military cemetery in 2021, and the honor guard were USAF and used M-14s for the salute volley.
@@brinsonharris9816 Honor guards do their own things, depending on what they can obtain. My younger brother's honor guard was Air Force Reserve and used M14's--other Air Force or Air National Guard used M1 rifles. The Marine honor guard for my eldest brother used M16A2 rifles and were active-duty Marine--the year was 2008. I dimly remember M14 rifles that the US Army honor guard fired in 1969 for my father's funeral.
Great information. I have always been a fan of John Garand's proginy be it the M1 to the M14 type rifle as I own a Garand, two M1A National Match rifles as well as a Scout Squad and SOCOM 16. Nothing like .30 caliber bang bang.
I was in the Navy from 1991-2011 I qualified and carried the M14 as a topside rover onboard USS Arthur W Radford DD968 in 2001-2003
I wonder all the time what would have happened if we went the AR-10 route???
We also had the Enfield 1917 in 30-06 at the beginning of the WWII
There were slotted fiberglass hand guards that were replaced early on due to breaking and allowing a "Heat Mirage", with protracted firing. Nice program
The US Army Ordinance Corps was the villain of the story. Colonel Rene Studler being the leader of the pack
he ship I was on in the early 80's still used the M-14 for security purposes and I loved the gun
Beretta developed the best advancement of the M1Garand by adding a box magazine to it, and changing it to 7.62 x 51 was a good balance of power and portability. We should have adapted it instead of
If they didn’t use the m14 for standard infantry then it would’ve been much more loved by troops, should have just been a dmr
The problem is the 30 caliber round is too darn expensive. The 556 will get the job done at $.40 a round. That’s a heck of a lot less than $1.50 to 2 dollars a round. Remember as a civilian, we probably need 500 yards or less for defense purposes. More like 300 yards. The 556 even in carbine version will stay lethal out to 400 yards, that being having enough velocity to cause catastrophic wounding affects in order to stop a threat. How do we know it works? We have tons of police civilian shootings of criminals to prove that inside 300 yards, the round and rifles is absolutely more than capable of defending the home. The trouble is you need to be able to afford to train with that and also be able to carry it physically. I just don’t think an M1 Garand or M14 can be used effectively used by the elderly, women, teenagers, etc. An AR 15 that is under 10 pounds in weight, with an adjustable stock, however yes. Sadly, what is right for the military is not always right for the civilian market. The military demographic works out very hard physically, and is young. Therefore, you can give them very heavy equipment. I would argue anyone past 40 will need an AR 15.
I got a Norinco clone
Never been created in the first place? Why has it been re-deployed and redeployed? One reason is that a 5.56 based AR platform is not an open country gun. It wasn't getting the job done in the SWA and I have several family-based factual accounts that being true. The M1A/M14 is an excellent "battle rifle," if you will. It was the wrong tool for Vietnam, but it is still the right tool for many applications. Thumbs down on this one.
It was always a stop gap. It was never issued because it was the best, just that it was available. Now that we have other options, the M14 is a paperweight. The M110s have every functional advantage over the M14.
We were issued M14s in McMillan stocks as DMRs, but they didn't work well in the desert. The open receiver invited grit into the bolt and FCG, and the grease on the bolt roller and other critical components turned into an abrasive sludge. The poor bastards that carried them also had to carry an M4 with at least six mags because the M14 wasn't reliable enough to be a primary weapon. For all the supposed service the M14 saw, it was issued but rarely saw real use. The M14 spent most of its "service" in a soft case in the back of the Humvee with cases of Cope Long Cut and bottled water. It was serialized gear, so it had to be present for weapons counts, but we hated the things and left them in the Humvees whenever we could get away with it.
I always liked the M14 and was always my favourite
Ordinance Corpse? MARINE Corpse? Good Lord!!!! It is pronounced the same as 'CORE'.
Silent p needs to be banned from English
A lotta corpses with ordinance.
Lololol.
@@jason200912thank the French
@@Fractal_blip and that's why the English and French hated each other for 500 years
Meant to replace the M1, BAR, M3 sub gun - completely failed in that. You’re correct it should have never been made - Col Rene Studler - head of US Ordinance. - had a bad case of “Not Made Here” blinders on. Went as far as to sendStoner and crew what amounted to proof ammo for AR10 trials causing catastrophic failure.
Studler's problem was more than just the "Not Invented Here" blinkers. He and the army brass were trying to invent a modern rifle using First World War parameters. The Germans went developed the the intermediate cartridge after a careful study that showed their troops were almost never firing their Kar98K's beyond 300m. Moreover, whenever they moved their machine guns, the volume of fire in the section and platoon went down drastically. The understood that what was required was a selective fire weapon that was effective to at least 300m. The Germans got that in the MP43/44/STG44, and the Russians figured this out very quickly as well. The US however, got a rifle that was obsolete from the moment it was born.
It wasn't meant to replace the smg. It was an outdated concept to replace the BAR which was already a pretty bad lmg compared to the bren and mg42 lmg and pkm
Just as Mr Small Arms Solutions UA-cam channel defined the evil of Col. Studler and band of obsolete officers wanting to keep the M14 in production no matter what.....
The story goes that Marines in Iraq had M 14s rechambered to a 6.5mm round that was flat shooting at long ranges. Can anybody confirm?
@@dennisgauck7526first time hearing about that. If so. Yes please Put my name on the list!
It was designed based on WW2 experience. However that was a handicap and still is a handicap. Intermediate cartridge technology and real world battlefield experience were ignored. That's why the M-14 is the shortest serving main battle rifle in US history. Meanwhile the M-16 is the longest serving standard rifle even in Carbine configuration.
The M14 program was cancelled before all of the bugs could be worked out. The M1923 cartridge belt (ten pockets with straps for M1903 rifle clips) were still being issued when units began receiving the M14 and period photos showing off the new M14 exist with the riflemen wearing M1923 belts. Sometime around 1943 the M1923 was simplified to the M1938 pattern without an internal retainer strap for the five-shot stripper clips used for the M1903. New web gear for the M14 rifle was made in 1956 patterns (US Army) and 1961 patterns (USMC) but by 1966 the M16 rifle was issued in large numbers to American troops in Vietnam and the web gear had to be changed almost before the manufacturing contracts for M14 web gear had been completed.
I qualified on the M-14 only 10 years ago for Military Sealift command Navy ships manned by Civilians.
Not sure if they are still using it but I was endorsed to fire warning shots at that time .
U.S. Naval Academy switched from M-1 s to M-14 for marching but they are All inoperative .
I believe my M1A is a fantastic rifle, but I wouldn’t want to carry it rabbit hunting. I suspect the M14’s downfall was it was a poor choice for the majority of its missions in Vietnam. It appears to me during WW2 it was realized the M1 was just too big to be as effective for a lot of missions, so they handed soldiers carbines. A little more effort was made to match the gun with the situation. The other thing that happens is armies change their fighting tactics to better cope with weapons they face. If there were no more M14
style weapons, I would
bet a situation would arise where they were really needed.
These babies got awful expensive which I grabbed one for the 1200$ years back for Rockford or Springfield armory one? What they fetch now if 3k by me is insane. Love the caliber. Loved the gun. 😢
Good vid! Thanks Heg.
Thanks man
The Brits had the right idea with their .280. If we had had that round with the FAL, as originally intended, it would have been a world beater. Oh well. Politics and ass kissers rule the day.
More StG 44 rifles were made than M1918-series Browning Automatic Rifles (BAR). Here is a forgotten fact--Garand's rifle was intended to replace the BAR, the few Thompsons that the Army wound up with, as well as the M1903 rifle (800,000 on hand in 1941) and the World War One M1917 (2,000,000 on hand in 1941 equipping the National Guard of the United States, the Army of the Philippines, and Britian's Home Guard). Also in 1941 the M1 Carbine was rapidly developed to replace most pistols, the Thompson submachine gun, and because the Garand was a handful many frontline troops got some of the six million Carbines made during WW2.
I read that about 4 million M1 rifles were made during WW2 and then another million plus made in America during Korea, with Beretta making more. (slightly more than a million m14 rifles were made) --Beretta's BM59 was what the M14 should have been. As it was the M14 was slightly heavier and larger than the M1 Rifle, and it was supposed to replace the M1 Rifle, the M1/M2 carbine, the M3 submachine gun (Thompsons were supposed to have been removed), and the BAR. The M1 was supposed to replace the BAR and submachine gun, too.
The M14 was no submachine gun. The M1 Carbine was almost a foot shorter than the M1 Rifle, cost half as much as the M1 Rifle, weighed half as much as the M1 Rifle, and had half the effective range of the M1 Rifle--the M14 was a poor replacement for the M2 Carbine.
God must love small arms because he works in mysterious ways. Post WWII the evolution of the calibers ended us with both 5.56 and 7.62. As Forrest said, “Mama said 5.56 is the best. Lieutenant Dan said 7.62 is the best. I think it could be both.”
I wondered what if we adopted the AR10 instead of the m16 and used 308 necked down brittish 7mm? We went backwards adopting 556 but untill afghan war we needed a better intermediate caliber... Lol
The fact remains that the average soldier never shoots more than 300 meters. The 5.56 fulfills this role quite well. What our military lacks is flexibility in small arms. A number of specially trained troops should have the option to carry an AR-10 when circumstances dictate it.
There's no need to adopt a new rifle. There is no need to adopt a new cartridge. We already had what we needed. We chose not to use them.
It has a receiver that says is Israeli defense forces with the star of David that’s unique
Sounds similar to the NGSW program..
Congratulations on pronouncing John Garand's name CORRECTLY! (Although Mr. Garand himself pronounced it with a bit of a French accent - he being a French-Canadian by birth.)
Also, it was a joy to hear your mention of Hugo Schmeisser and his contribution to the AK-47. Schmeisser was actually working for the Haenel Company where he developed the sub-machine gun that bore his name (unofficially, as it was officially referred to as the Haenel). But Schmeisser himself, working for Haenel, became very skilled in the use of stamped and welded sheet metal in sub gun manufacturer, replacing forged and milled steel billets.
At the conclusion of WWII, a most German techniques and manufacturing processes, as well as the engineering and manufacturing talent, were swept up by the Allies and put to work in advancing those countries' defense projects. Hugo Schmeisser found himself in the part of Germany that fell under the Soviets as part of East Germany. So Herr Schmeisser found himself relocated to Russia, where he worked in their arms industry.
Mikhail Kalashnikov designed the original AK-47 to have a stamped, folded, and welded receiver. He did so while assigned to a sort of R&D company, and used the material sources available to him through that company. The AK-47 as originally adopted required a high-grade of sheet steel for the fabrication of the receiver. After adoption by the Soviet Union, other Russian arms manufacturers were put to work building this new rifle, and sourced their raw materials from the "normal" Russian suppliers (who were not technically as capable as producing the sheet steel required for the AK-47 receiver). As a result the original AK-47s were prone to failing. As a stopgap measure they converted the AK-47 from a sheet steel receiver to a forged and milled receiver. This was the norm for several years. However, recognizing the skills possessed by Hugo Schmeisser, they assigned to Schmeisser the task of bringing Russian sheet steel manufacturing abilities up to the standards required for AK-47 manufacture.
Good video. I enjoyed it.
Thanks man
I actually do not see a problem with the M-14 other than its chambering of a full power cartridge. Honestly, I think it is a better (lighter) rifle than the. Save for it's outdated wooden furniture and individual preferences for pistol grip ergonomics, I don't see it as inferior to the FAL or G3.
My brotha ✊🏼
Last American battle rifle? The new M7 is a battle rifle based on its requirements, let alone size and weight.
Failed no just wrong theator. Came with a bipod for a reason and a selector switch
A couple of comments were inaccurate (re: stocks, uncontrollable in full auto) so I cannot agree with the presentation. Been there; done that.
The German mp40 was developed in 1938 by Heinrich Vollmer,, not Hugo Schmeisser. Schmeisser developed the mp18.
WHY IS THERE A SUBLIMINAL FLASH IMAGE AT 3:22 IN THIS VIDEO?????
Corps is pronounced "core" not "corpse."
Correct pronunciation of “Corps” is “core”
Great video man! Loved it. One thing though. You realize that you pronounce "corp" incorrectly right? Marine "corp," and ordinance "corp." You said it so many times and wrong every time. Couldn't not let you know. Hope you don't take it wrong.
Bro, "Corps" is pronounced "Core"
Why do so many people pronounce Kalashnikov as “Kalishnikov”? That’s an ‘a’ not an ‘i’
Cementary?????
The M1 Garand was never reliable in combat. It proved to be a huge headache at the beginning of the war in Africa. Dozens of modifications were made and grease was issued. But these never did solve the reliability issues. It faired better in Europe, but rust & swelling wood stocks proved to be a huge headache in the Pacific. We look back at the rifle fondly, but it was a unreliable in combat & prone to parts failures.
M1 garands were hard to come by in 1942, everyone was running a 1903a3
Now I KNOW you never served in our military. Similar to calling a Marine an “ex Marine”, miss pronouncing Marine Corps as “Marine Corpse” is highly disrespectful to any Marine and I’m just a retired Army Grunt (Infantryman). And yes, I used the M-21 as a sniper in the mid 80’s and she can perform well in that role but it requires a LOT of additional tuning to achieve those results, we should’ve just stuck with the Remington 700 like the Marines did.
I''m a crayon eater who is aghast at this man's assault on the pronunciation of,and other violations of basic english.
The downfall was the result of Curtis LeMay to have a lightweight weapon for his candy ass airmen and the fact that the RVNs were too light in the sneakers to carry such a fine weapon.
The M16 killed two of my cousins in Vietnam cuz they didn't work
M14 is chambered in 30 06. M14 has a " Brother From Another Mother " called BM59 which is chambered in 7.62X51 NATO. BM59 also 3 shot burst not full auto like M14. Both M14 / BM59 needed Foward Assist. Tom Cruise in " Born on the Fourth of July " ended up in a wheel-chair cause his M14 jammed up cause M14 doesn't have Foward Assist.
M14 is 7.62 NATO.
@@Hornet135 M14 is chambered in 30 06 ( 30 Odd 6 ) . BM59 is chambered in 7.62X51 NATO. BM59 is a " 3 Shot Burst " while M14 is Full Auto. For some reason Yanks made their 1st Battle Rifle in 30 06 While Belgium, Spain, Germany and Switzerland made their Batlle Rifles in 7.62X51 NATO.
@@anish-79 You are wrong. The M1 Garand was .30-06, but the M14 was 7.62 NATO. It was the US that pushed NATO towards 7.62 NATO and then adopted the M14 in 7.62 NATO.
@@Hornet135 if you don't believe me then look up M14 on wiki and also look up BM59. BM59 chambered in 7.62X51 and M14 chambered in 30-06.
@@anish-79 Learn basic knowledge before discussing a subject. The M14 is 7.62 NATO. You’re ignorant, trolling, or a bot.
Never been made? That's like saying the Garand should have bever been made. Only one thing wrong with the M1A and that the cost to assemble one nowadays is ridiculous.
No, there’s plenty wrong with the M14/M1A. Go watch some videos from small arms solutions.
I think the M14 is awesome