The M14 makes a big comeback

[1911crazy]

I read the US is refurbishing the M14 in many numbers for Afganistan and replacing some M16's because of the terrain there the M14 has more range than the M16.  Lets face it most of knew one gun can't do it all. I seen pics of the M14's in Iraq too the other day on the history channel too.
On the history channel they did a comparison between the M16 and the AK47.  I guess in many situations the AK47 surpassed the performance of the M16 even with a close bayonet fight the AK47 being a solid heavier wood/steel rifle would win out over the lighter plastic M16.  I personally think its time for the US to get a totally new weapon rather than change just the uppers to a new 6mm caliber but you know what happens when politics and $$ plays a role in cutting the cost of a new weapon.  We really lack in giving our foot soldiers the best weapon we could and this is where the russians excell.                                              BigBill

When did BUSH say the war was over in Iraq??  Did anyone tell the insurgens?  I don't know but Moore's film sure does make some sense in a way and sure does raise some questions about what were fighting and americans are dying for.

[Badnews Bob]

All the arsnels aboard navy ships still have plenty of ready to issue M14s
Sailors hang on to a good thing when they get it.

[jh45gun]

As a gun owner I would not watch any of Moore's crap!  :x By renting it or going to the movie all you are doing is putting money in this liberal pukes pocket!  :x

[earschplitinloudenboomer]

...j45gun I am of the same opinion. I have NOT seen the movie. Some of the negative people and opinions, I will research on the net to better "know thine enemy", but I will NOT give him dollars. Moore is not to be taken lightly, he IS making money and IS establishing a following.

[1911crazy]

It just maybe an eye opener if you did see Moore's movie some of it if true puts washington in a very bad position, it makes the war in the middle east a smoke screen to keep the threats of aggression against the countries they have personally invested money into the oil & gas cartel in arabia.  Its good to look at things from both sides while he (moore)is an @sshole and Clint Eastwwod put it right by telling him if you show up at my door I'll shoot you. What if moore's movie is just 50% right? It sure looks like were in that area to protect our Bush's family oil investments if thats the case its a very sad day for americans.                                                                 BigBill

[New Hampshire]

The problem with Moore is that he produces half truths, twist the real truth and outright lies to produce his political agenda.  Now the average person who does not know any better accepts it all as based on facts.  I could easily make a case that Dinosaurs still exist and roam the earth by taking a few real truths, throw around some twisted truths and then lies.......poof dinosaurs exist.  And when I do it with a straight face and sound like I know what Im talking about?  Well hell now I got millions of people out looking for T-Rex's.  When you are dealing with people like Moore you need to take it all with a grain of salt.  Ive heard too many people say about Moores movies that they are "all in good fun" and that they know better.  But unfortunately the average person DOES NOT know better.  For far too long Moore and his numb nut buddies have pushed the idea the war was fought over oil.  And these people were doing it and saying it like we could storm in there, pick up the oil fields, and fly out to Texas!  Here we are, over a year after the wars officail start, and wher is all this oil we were supposedly there to "steal"?  Gas amd oil are still about the same as a year ago, the oil fields are still in Iraq (being run by Iraq's as well) and we are still purchasing the bulk of our oil from Saudi Arabia.  What does all this mean? Hmmm..............Moore was wrong maybe?  Naaaa that cant be it, because Moore is never wrong (or at least thats what HE thinks  :roll: .)
Brian M.

[kevin.303]

i'm just gonna nudge this back on topic here...

has the US military given thought to adopting the AR10? i would assume it would be an easier transition for troops already familar with the AR15/M16 design, but sends the .308 down the pipe. plus training raw recruits will take longer if your using a cartridge that has noticeble recoil, even though it's not too bad in a semi auto. i think one of the big problems with the AR15/M16 rifles is the fact that when it was first developed the US Ordnance Board screwed around with it to try and purposely make it fail, because they preferred the idea of a "traditional" .30 caliber rifle and didn't really want to give the M16 a chance. for instance using Ball powder instead of IMR after Eugene Stoner said it wouldn't work. i wonder how many kids in Vietnam got killed just because someone didn't get what they wanted. read the December issue of American Rifleman, same problem happened in WW1 with the Lewis machine gun.

[Rustyinfla]

I read a report that one idea the military was thinking about was to give each squad one M-14, possibly scoped. The idea was that the solider so equipped would be the designated marksman. His job would be to engage targets that were out of effective range for the M-16.

  My personal opinion is that the importance of the trained rifleman has been by passed over in favor of more High tech weapons. Remember that the USMC entered WWII with the bolt action Springfield  as standard issue. One shot one kill was not just the motto of the snipers back then.

[jh45gun]

Well said New Hampshire. Bill I am not criticising you if you want to spend your money that way thats your business.  No hard feelings. I just stated as others did I would not spend mine to support that puke.

[1911crazy]

I read a report that one idea the military was thinking about was to give each squad one M-14, possibly scoped. The idea was that the solider so equipped would be the designated marksman. His job would be to engage targets that were out of effective range for the M-16.

  My personal opinion is that the importance of the trained rifleman has been by passed over in favor of more High tech weapons. Remember that the USMC entered WWII with the bolt action Springfield  as standard issue. One shot one kill was not just the motto of the snipers back then.

I think they needed a gun to fil the gap between the M16 and the snipers like the Remington 700 and the barret 50 rifle and the M14 was a good choice.  It should of never been retired in the first place.
I seen on TV before the Afgan war the taliban were bragging how they beat the Russians and they would do the same to the US.  They were standing there with old Russian mosin rifles they appeared to be 91/30's. I think they showed old 303 brittish enfields too. If your high up on a ridge above your enemy with an old mosin and the ones below have M16's or AK47's you better have plenty of body bags which the Russians found out.  If you put a few marksman with one of these old rifles I think he could sure raise hell down below.  I'm sure the US was put in this position many times and realized the M14 was needed again at least one or more in every rifle squad.  I have seen in videos from Iraq there were M14's that were scoped too so there making a comeback in both places.  Lets face it one gun won't cover it all in heavy spray firepower and long distance accurate shots.  I hope their learning these high tech weapons aren't going to cut it too.                                       BigBill

[1911crazy]

Well said New Hampshire. Bill I am not criticising you if you want to spend your money that way thats your business.  No hard feelings. I just stated as others did I would not spend mine to support that puke.

I have the unlimited rental package at blockbuster so I didn't pay for that one by itself.   But i think some of his stuff is BS but some of it makes sense like running the gas pipeline and the Bush's are in bed with the Saudi's  its about making profits and keeping the region stable too so the big profits for everyone can continue too.   I think the war just isn't all about making the Iraq'ies free its all about protecting the big investors who are in America too.  It sure makes me feel great while our american lives are put on the line to protect their @sses over there they raise the price of a barrel of oil on us.  We constantly get it stuck up our @sses from all these towelheads and will we ever wake up?  You should watch the Moore movie because there just maybe some truth to it.   You just may find out there are many reasons why were there fighting one of them is to control the oil supply too and that means big profits right? For who?
And "us" the american tax payers are supporting and  paying for all this BS.  Lets call it the BIG SHOW!!!!!!!!!                                                                   BigBill

[New Hampshire]

The Bushs' may be in bed with the Saudis, but to be blunt the Dems are in bed with the Europeans and the U.N., and I really dont like any of em.  Unfortunately its what you call "politics as usual" which is sad.

Now, Back to topic.

Fred from Freds M-14 stocks absolutely adores the M-14 and I believe it is a well founded love.  The .308 offers better performance over longer ranges, but still has the punch of the 06 in a shorter, more efficient package.  As for the operating system itself, the John Garand design by which the M1 and M14 are based, can arguably be THE BEST, MOST ACCURATE semi auto system of their times.  Its no surprise that they would be platforms for marksman weapons and match rifles.  I truely believe the M1 and M14 are the ULTIMATE battle rifles.  Today, yesterday, and maybe even tomorrow.
Brian M.