I was not aware that the original m14 had any plastic on them.
IIRC, and it has been a while, on the rifles we were issued, the stock was wood, probably walnut, but the handguard was a slotted, flimsy kind of fiberglass or plastic-type material. Didn't look nice, didn't feel nice, seemed flimsy, didn't inspire confidence but some of these reactions were just reactions to change. I really liked the Springfield and the Garand.
It was a synthetic of some type. Brown. I understand that some M14's had synthetic stocks also, although none of the ones I used did. Fred's lists some in his ad.
My current SA M1A was built in '94 back when they were still using USGI parts and it has the brown "plastic" upper hand guard.
Last edited by rice paddy daddy; 11-03-2009 at 07:18.
Later on, and I don't know why (but suspect to reduce weight), they started making fiberglass stocks. I guess that counts as synthetic, but not what we mean when we refer to modern synthetic stocks.
All I know about this is from my high school ROTC. We eventually ran out of wood stocks and they started sending us the fiberglass. The wood stocks would survive all sorts of abuse, but the fiberglass ones broke very easily. Would hate to think of those being used in hand-to-hand combat.
According to our SMI's (all but one of whom had served in combat in Vietnam), these fiberglass stocks were never issued in the field.
the M1 was made and used with a magazine called a BM59.
the M14 was designed to be full auto not because of the M1 clip.full auto needs more ammo.what do you think a soldier does when the clip is near empty.he dumps the thing and puts another in.who cares about the live ammo. as to the clips the Italians and Austians,Dutch,and Germany,Turkey used mannlichers with enblock clips from 1890s to end of WW2.
the M14 failed as a full auto.thats why the M16 came into being,that can be shot full auto.the russians and french and germans and mexicans had auto loaders in WW1.they were to fragil.and the win 351/35 was used by russia in WW1.the rem mod 8 is basis for the French chauchat.and the safety is seen on the AK47.
Ill take a garand over a 5.56 for WAR. Meaning people shooting back that are trained.
The 5.56 (AR) is great if your at war with Prarie dogs, or protecting your home, business, etc during riots.
But, in the end, if they are shooting back, I want a .30 cal. M1, M1A, FN-FAL, 1903 Springfield even!
One of the reasons I like my mini-14 over AR's, even though its no where near as accurate, is the mini-garand type action to it. I like Steel, not aluminum. Aluminum is for .22lr and pellet guns, not centerfire
Having trained in both basic and AIT with a garand I can tell you that the noise the clip makes when it is ejected is great for the shooter so that he can tell when his weapon is empty. It is quite possible in many circumstances when under stress and fatigue to not realize that your weapon is empty. The Garand solved that problem. I used many weapons during my 2 tours in S.E. Asia but none of them was as soldier friendly as the good old Garand. FRJ
Scully:
The Garand only seems to be a little heavier than my Lee-Enfield #4 (so far my only full-size battle rifle), 'geschleppt' around four-five continents by most of our English-speaking allies.
9.5 versus 8.8 lbs., from 'Wikipedia'.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 12-19-2009 at 21:17.
A few things I've noticed REALLY need to be addressed here.
1. The ONLY changes made to the M1 rifle to accommodate launching of rifle grenades were a vented GC lock screw, and longer follower rod forks. There is zip, zero, nada amount of stress to the oprod during the short duration 1/2" cycling pulse from grenade launch, but it would and did dismount the short fork follower rod when the operating rod spring did a 'slinky'.
2. Changes to an external box magazine had more to to with material support in the field than any other factor. The army already KNEW from their own tests that the M1 platform provided a higher level of sustained accurate fire than the T44E4 (M14) rifle could support. The gas piston system is the greatest single improvement IMHO, it is less prone to problems especially including the cutoff system for launching rifle grenades.
3. They both simply BLOW when being fired in a constant drizzle/rain (the condition in which I qualed with the M14 in the Philippines). If your headgear doesn't provide cover for the aperture the target area disappears between blows to empty the water from the aperture. In rain conditions open sights actually do excel. Just my .03¢ (adjusted for inflation).
__________________ Appleseed Project: Where marksmanship meets history and the heritage begins. Revolutionary War Veterans Association Paying Tribute To April 19, 1775 Through Awareness, Learning & Marksmanship.
then what your saying is the operating rod does not break from gas pressure.
I am asking because that is the story on the web sites.I have two and shot the 06 one in some matches and never had problem.the spring did break recently in middle.I have replaced with new SS one. I will be shooting it if the weather stops raining and warms up,my old bones does not like the 30 degree weather.
Location: Lo-Cal So. Cal. where the money is plastic & the people are too!
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILDCATT
then what your saying is the operating rod does not break from gas pressure.
As LT stated, when firing rifle grenades, the tappet valve in the revised gas plug was held open by the rifle grenade launcher attached to the muzzle, and excess pressure was vented out the valve. Certainly there was some energy input to the op-rod, but not enough to cycle the action, & hence less than the op-rod would experience during normal fire.
Op rods w/ the sharp angle [aka "uncut"] failed in use due to the stress riser this created. Unless you were a lefty, you couldn't even get seriously hurt when the op-rod failed [altho' I sure wouldn't have wanted to experience that moment! ] But op-rods w/ the built-in stress riser manifestly did fail, so they came up with a solution [eliminate the stress riser by making a radius at point.]
__________________
Never forget that the only reason anyone has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn't allow if you were equipped to prevent it.
Location: Lo-Cal So. Cal. where the money is plastic & the people are too!
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahermit
Running proper ammunition has nothing to do with flaws(weakness, potential problems), in design. If the lack of a removable box magazine was not a military disadvantage, there would not have been an M14.
The enbloc clip was not a disadvantage of the M1's design, but rather a carefully selected feature.
Humans always seem to be preparing to fight the last war. At the time of the Garand's development, that was the Great War, aka WWI, which event possessed a defining attribute of trench warfare amid startling amounts of mud.
At the time of the M14's development, the previous war had been WWII, which had the defining attribute of the M1's unparalleled dominance of combatants' small arms. That meant that the soldier's gripes about the difficulties of firing loose ammo w/o a clip [which the rifle automagically disposed of whenever empty] and topping off w/o disclosing your position* got primacy of concern vs. that of some brass hat from the prior generation's conflict.
Quote:
If the open slot behind the bolt was not a design flaw, the fully enclosed(including a cover for the ejection port), action of the the M16 would not have been invented. You can quote me.
Ooh, I wouldn't do that to you!
The completely sealed action of Stoner's Advanced Rifle project #15 is a byproduct of his aeropace engineer's attention to detail. He was purposefully developing a rifle utilizing advanced aerospace materials which possessed absolutely no tolerance for grit within the system. As such, he wisely built-in the necessary safeguards to try to maintain operability under normal use. Since the original objective was to make a lightweight small arm of less-expensive manufacture, longevity was of lesser importance. Reliability was knowingly sacrificed on the altars of weight & (lower) expense (of production.)
The round it was designed around was chosen by a military think-tank, which began with fallacious starting parameters & therefore reached a statistical conclusion that was out of step w/ reality. Classic GIGO.
Reliance upon fully-automatic fire to compensate for inadequate musketry instruction and drill ultimately only costs the taxpayer more money. And inevitably, more sons & daughters. A more reliable arm firing a cartridge of satisfactory terminal performance to be legal in all states of the Union for the taking of whitetail deer [which are typically of less body mass than the avg. citizen] should be the minimum objective for our soldiers' equipment.
That's my opinion & I'm entitled to it. Disagree w/ me all you want, but I didn't arrive at this casually, so I will difficult to shift...
* - the standard mode of replenishing an M1 with a partially used clip was to fire off the remaining 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 rds & insert a fresh one, provided adequate ammunition resupply was available.
__________________
Never forget that the only reason anyone has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn't allow if you were equipped to prevent it.
That very well may be true, some individuals can tolerate recoil very well, but many people found the M1 recoil to be very punishing. Most of my training company only scored "Marksman" or did not qualify at all. Most complained of the recoil.
What?! Punishing? That's crazy!
From the first time I shot a Garand, I loved it, and still do!
Sure it has some kick, but I wouldn't call it "punishing", unless it's not tight against your shoulder, to make it uncomfortable for a shooter.
Geez, I was only 10 when I qualified as a "Marksman" to earn my DCM Garand, but I didn't think it was bad for recoil (I started shooting with a .44Mag Carbine, though), and bought it when I was 21!
I'd also have to call the Garand my 1st choice for anything goes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahermit
Nevertheless, the M1 is superbly balanced as is evident in the fact that the U.S. Ceremonial/Drill Teams in D.C. still use the M1 Garand.
That is true! Dad was on the US Drill Team, and marched in parades with a beautiful white stocked M1 Garand, but he's not able to do the presentations like he used to, unfortunately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodchuckssuck
Ill take a garand over a 5.56 for WAR. Meaning people shooting back that are trained.
The 5.56 (AR) is great if your at war with Prarie dogs, or protecting your home, business, etc during riots.
But, in the end, if they are shooting back, I want a .30 cal. M1, M1A, FN-FAL, 1903 Springfield even!
One of the reasons I like my mini-14 over AR's, even though its no where near as accurate, is the mini-garand type action to it. I like Steel, not aluminum. Aluminum is for .22lr and pellet guns, not centerfire
I'm not taking any chances, or time to choose one or another; if it becomes WAR, I'm digging in with ALL of them!
Even with a Red Ryder BB gun, "You'll shoot your eye out!"...
This post could be dormant, but I had to throw my 3 cents in.
1. My problem with the M1 is that mine ejects the enbloc and remaining rounds after 3 shots. (Using surplus Greek Ammo) Otherwise I like it.
2. The M-14 I used in Scotland was a field grade and operated fine in that climate. I did like the stripper clip feeder on the receiver. Oh and I got expert with it too. US Navy team was lugging M-14's while brits got to use LA-80 bullpups.
3. The best bayonet platform was a trench gun (shotgun) with the 16" bayonet made for the '03 and M1.
So only #1 applies to this post, and I can't figure out which part(s) to replace. Any suggestions?
Reqarding the 'square cut' op-rod, I'd hold on to it and buy a replacement one.
Skeeve:
Your comments about the M-16 remind me of a very quick ride to a Newark (EWR) airport hotel a year ago.
A coworker from another crewbase was with us. Having seen two special forces stickers on his bag and hearing that he had fought in Desert Storm with Special Forces (we were now just a minute from the hotel), I could not resist asking him a question. "Would you prefer a US-designed or Russian-designed rifle?"
His answer was "Well, our rifles would jam, and so we picked up AKs". He was very matter-of-fact about it. We were in front of the hotel and there was no time to learn the context of the situation in Desert Storm.
Some of our younger combat vets on the Internet are offended when I mention this, but I've offered to get the guy's phone number for clarification. Nobody wants to verify the guy's experience in "the Sand Box", even after stating that his/my comments "are b.s."
He sometimes visits local coworkers I know, who are in nw MS.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 08-21-2010 at 18:50.
To correct #3 the 1897 Winchester trench gun used the 1917 bayonet. And yes I agree shotguns seem very well suited to bayonets. Which is why I have a 590a1 and still practice drills . I did say that m16s were fine bayonet platforms that was not meant to take anything away from the M1. The M1 has the added benefit of a longer reach and when fighting h2h that is helpfull. Stickem if you can, buttstroke them if the get inside.
Not to drift to far but I just finished a book about the war in the pacific and it's no wonder we still drill with bayonets. Those men had it rough. I've trained on those islands and man those places ensure h2h combat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC1369
This post could be dormant, but I had to throw my 3 cents in.
1. My problem with the M1 is that mine ejects the enbloc and remaining rounds after 3 shots. (Using surplus Greek Ammo) Otherwise I like it.
2. The M-14 I used in Scotland was a field grade and operated fine in that climate. I did like the stripper clip feeder on the receiver. Oh and I got expert with it too. US Navy team was lugging M-14's while brits got to use LA-80 bullpups.
3. The best bayonet platform was a trench gun (shotgun) with the 16" bayonet made for the '03 and M1.
So only #1 applies to this post, and I can't figure out which part(s) to replace. Any suggestions?
Reqarding the 'square cut' op-rod, I'd hold on to it and buy a replacement one.
military can't get enough M-14 back in service in the sand box right now. The m16 is junk for a battle rifle and always has been. The .223 is good for paper and that is about it. M1 set the bar and the M14 sets on top of it. @ 400yd you can bang away all day with an Ak47 and be luck to hit your target. you bang away with a M1 and in 1 hour you could find anything of that target. it is a tack driver @ 400yds. I would have to say the M1 would be the one i wanted if i had to use it with out ammo in close Q as well. with ammo? M-14 bar none. any of my family or friends in the box or who have come home would have loved and wanted to be issued the m14 over the M16 or M4. we would have had some of these to issue but thanks to every Dumbocate that gets in office they cut up our surplus arms stock.
but some of these reactions were just reactions to change. I really liked the Springfield and the Garand.
] But op-rods w/ the built-in stress riser manifestly did fail, so they came up with a solution [eliminate the stress riser by making a radius at point.]
Linear Mode
