this really broke my bubble with the M14 even MORE! [Archive]

Col. Colt

06-04-2015, 02:35

The site wants me to update my browser, so I haven't seen the test yet, but I do distinctly recall reading that the Army found out in the African Desert that the M1 Garand, running in a sandy environment, must be degreased, and run either dry, or with a very light instrument oil film. Once that was done, they were not a problem. They also issued a small (M31?) brush with the M1, made by the Fuller Brush Company, which may have been for desert maintainence.

I do recall that one of the points in the M14s favor over the FNFAL was that the M14 was fine in sand testing - and the FAL was NOT - requiring "sand cuts" to be made to get it to work in sandy environments. So why did this M1A not do the same thing as it's military brother as well?

I agree that a recent production "tight civilian/match chambered" M1A would be at a severe disadvantage in this test to a "M14 GI Chrome barrel model, with a real GI long throated 7.62MM chamber. That alone could cause lots of trouble. A real M14 might have been a fairer test of the design. And what ammo were they using? Was it correct port pressure for the M1A/M14? We must remember that M1As are not exactly built or clearanced like a GI M14. I don't recall of any confirmed reports of problems with properly maintained US Military M14s in the desert before.

Did the ARs have the dust cover open or closed during the testing? I know that in the early going in Iraq, at least one support unit had a high percentage of M16s that failed to work in Combat when they were attacked in the Desert. This was reported in the Media, and not denied by the military. I seem to remember some of our troops were captured as a result.

I suspect both platforms are workable in the sandbox - but only if maintained specifically for that exact condition. Smart operators always close the dust covers on ARs, and keep a mag in the well, and clean them daily. I have heard no reports from anyone of the M14 DMRs having reliability problems, and the larger surfaces in the M14 can let sand in - but if dry the sand can be pushed aside, and you can clean/clear the action from the top quickly.

Most of these Blogger/Youtube "tests" are run by amateurs or someone with a bias - who sometimes rig things to pick a winner. I saw the famous "Mud Test" of the M1A of the fat guy dragging it through the mud in a way no soldier would and it was a hoax - they deliberately stuffed a NEW M1A full of mud (no mention of if it had even been properly lubed before it was tested) and were shooting 110 grain bullet ammo that almost certainly was not engineered for the necessary M14 gas port pressure. In my opinion, that was a Rigged Test - and there was even some sponsorship by Armalite for these guys at the time! They did mention the light bullet ammo at the end, but I'm not sure many people were paying attention.
I'll try to watch the feed at work before final judgment - but a good salesman (and I am one) knows how to make his product look good and by setting the conditons for his products strengths, can always "win" the contest. Deliberately rigging weapons tests is not exactly rare - or new.

Lots of potential influences at work here. Certainly curious that the M14 beat the FAL in sand - and now it's a problem......?? CC

Griff Murphey

06-04-2015, 04:45

Good point.

Rock

06-04-2015, 08:38

I wonder how a 73 Trapdoor, M1917, 03, SMLE or 98 Mauser would have fared in that test.

Whatever tests people cook up doesn't change historical fact. There are battle tested arms that were used in harsh conditions all over the globe and were well liked and trusted by the end users.

Art

06-04-2015, 01:04

I wonder how a 73 Trapdoor, M1917, 03, SMLE or 98 Mauser would have fared in that test.

None of those are autoloaders and autoloaders have problems unique to themselves. One thing that held autoloaders back was the difficulties with making them reliable with the full power military cartridges of the time.

Sand, mud or grit in the barrel or locking recesses will stop any rifle. That is ANY RIFLE!! If you look at an M1 or an M14 from the top the breach and the locking lugs and recesses are out there in front of God and all creation. It was the first truly workable autoloader and in its day the Garand action (which is what we're still talking about with an M14) was the only truly serviceable generally reliable autoloading action in a full power rifle which is the reason it was also the only generally issued self loading rifle. To prevent stopages due to wet and muddy conditions, or should I say to minimize them special lubricants were used that weren't required on bolt action repeaters. If you look at the Garand's competition, the SVT 40 was too fragile and too difficult to maintain by the common soldier and the G 43 was a plagerized somewhat improved SVT 40, and the Ljungman required lubricated ammunition to function optimally (talk about an invitation to crud in the chamber.) The Garand was the greatest infantry weapon of its day but I would not use it or the M14 if I could find a more modern firearm. Nostalgia stops when it comes to saving my skin.

So time marches on and the Garand action has been superseded by other types that are more rugged and require less maintenance. The reason for the AK 47.s (among some others) reputation for reliability is it does a better job than most in protecting the breach and locking recesses from dirt. Dirt can get into the action but usually where it doesn't matter because of the design of the weapon. Like any other autoloading weapon AK system firearms can and will fail due to dirt or grit in the breach or locking recesses, its just harder for it to get there and it absolutely requires no special lubes or handling and any idiot can maintain it.

Col. Colt, the AR started with the bolt cover shut which is the way it should be, that's the reason the cover exists. However it was obviously open during firing. On ammunition, the ammunition used in the M1A was Federal ammunition specifically made for the M1A. A point made emphatically during the video. Again on "properly lubed." When I was in the Army we were never issued gun grease, in fact I didn't know gun grease existed. All we had was the functional equivalent of Three in One Oil. I was one of those "end users" Rock talks about and I was the victim of stopages I'm sure were the result of not having the right lube, can you say malfeasance on the part of command?

Finally, I am going to re-emphasize that a lot of progress has been made, generally in firearms design (some real duds excepted.) A modern battle rifle shouldn't have to be "properly lubed" with a special grease to function under duress. That was fine in 1940 or even 1950 but not today. One of the big issues with the M16, partly because its system generates its own crud, is the disproportionate amount of user maintenance it needs to run properly, but one thing it does not need is any lubricant except light machine oil, and it does do a good job of protecting the breach and locking recesses from crud. As far as "sand cuts" on the FAL, well I think that was just a swellelegant idea.

Soooo, I'm not surprised terribly at the results. When it comes to protecting my hind end nostalgia stops. I shoot vintage milsurps for grins and love doing it. I don't trust vintage autoloading firearms if my life is on the line.

Oh, a P.S. The old boy in the video knew how to clear the weapon when the bolt froze, something I wish they'd taught me when I was in the Army. I didn't learn that until many years later.

Rock

06-04-2015, 06:50

None of those are autoloaders and autoloaders have problems unique to themselves. One thing that held autoloaders back was the difficulties with making them reliable with the full power military cartridges of the time.

Sand, mud or grit in the barrel or locking recesses will stop any rifle. That is ANY RIFLE!!

That's why I mentioned those manually operated arms. Introduce that much dirt into any mechanism and it will cease functioning. The M1903 came in first when tested in sand and mud during tests of the M1 and other semi auto rifles in the early 40's. But that didn't mean that the 03 and other bolt actions didn't have problems in harsh conditions. Sealing actions is a good way to keep dirt out. A few bolt action designs started out with sliding action covers because dirt did cause malfunctions. Eventually, militaries decided that sealing the actions with covers was not necessary and those rifles served well enough without them.

The AR15 in that test functioned as long as it did because of its sealed action and not enough sand entered the action to stop it. It would have been interesting if the shooter performed a reload during that mini sand storm. That open ejection port would have received a load of sand before the shooter chambered the first round of the second magazine.

Also, as I mentioned before, the accessory rail on that particular M1A most likely directed additional sand into the action. Also, the flat bolt of a M1/M1A tosses sand off the bolt and away from the action during unlocking and that accessory rail probably caused any sand ejected by the unlocking bolt to bouce back into the action. They should have used a stock M1A in the testing.

Art

06-04-2015, 07:15

That's why I mentioned those manually operated arms. Introduce that much dirt into any mechanism and it will cease functioning. The M1903 came in first when tested in sand and mud during tests of the M1 and other semi auto rifles in the early 40's. But that didn't mean that the 03 and other bolt actions didn't have problems in harsh conditions. Sealing actions is a good way to keep dirt out. A few bolt action designs started out with sliding action covers because dirt did cause malfunctions. Eventually, militaries decided that sealing the actions with covers was not necessary and those rifles served well enough without them.

The AR15 in that test functioned as long as it did because of its sealed action and not enough sand entered the action to stop it. It would have been interesting if the shooter performed a reload during that mini sand storm. That open ejection port would have received a load of sand before the shooter chambered the first round of the second magazine.

Also, as I mentioned before, the accessory rail on that particular M1A most likely directed additional sand into the action. Also, the flat bolt of a M1/M1A tosses sand off the bolt and away from the action during unlocking and that accessory rail probably caused any sand ejected by the unlocking bolt to bouce back into the action. They should have used a stock M1A in the testing.

True enough, and I do agree a "stock" M1A would have been a better choice, but an M14/M1A would have been just as susceptible with it's bolt open after the last shot from a magazine. Thinking about it now I wonder a bit if the lack of a bolt hold open device on the AK weapons might have been a way to mitigate this problem?? Who knows.

Col. Colt

06-05-2015, 11:12

I decided to research the official sources for how an M14 was to be used in the desert, per Uncle Sugar. Once again, the GI Manual sheds a little light......

If these "Low Budget Myth Busters" had a fair test, certain conditions would have been met before and during the test - simulating reality, not just the testers own limited desire to "make a video": (full disclosure - I tried to get to see the video again, and it still won't let my Windows XP machine in) :

If they are simulating a sandstorm firefight (pretty unlikely, but possible) the AR variants should have had to do a reload WITH THE SAND BLOWING into their open weapon, as it would actually be. I predict a different outcome for them. As Art already quite correctly mentioned - ALL weapons systems stop when the lockup is fouled with sand. As I mentioned, this has happended, in combat, to the AR/M16 weapons system - contrary to the outcome of this supposed "test".

For the M1A/M14 test to be considered to be a valid test of these weapon types against each other, the following conditions must ensue:

1.) The rifle in question should NOT be a brand new, out of the box weapon - but at least broken in with 500 rounds. The parkerizing/coatings alone, on an unfired rifle, temporarily create extra friction that will never occur in the field - because no one takes a brand new, untried/sighted in weapon to war - if they are smart.
2.) The M14/M1A tested - if this is a test to prove the reliability of one distinct weapon platform over another - should be configured as actually issued by the US Army for field (not Match) use. That would mean a chrome lined barrel/chamber, and in 7.62MM chambering, not .308 Winchester at 1.631 headspace. The SAGE stocked EBRs are made from grade A, standard M14 rifles, adding the stock and optics only. A few grains of sand on the round would stop a tight, Match chambered gun immediately. And probably did.
3.) The weapon will be appropriately lubed, by the USGI Manual FOR THE EXPECTED CONDITONS, as listed in the manual, (and expected maintenance would of course be performed daily, PER THE MANUAL, in the field by real troops).

In the M14/M1A's case, let's look at Field Manual FM 23-8, dated 1974 "M14 and M14A1 Rifles and Rifle Marksmanship". Starting on page 51 we have "Normal Maintenance" instructions to the soldier. Under paragraph (e) we find the following instructions: "In hot, dry climates the rifle must be cleaned daily or more often to remove sand andor dust from the bore and working parts. In sandy areas, the rifle should be kept dry. The muzzle and reciever should be kept covered during sand or dust storms. Wooden parts must be kept oiled with raw linseed oil to prevent drying. The rifle should be lightly oiled when sand and dust conditons decrease."

So, was the M1A/M14 given a fair shake in this multi-platform competition? Probably not. And as a side note, how many of us in the United States will be dealing with these desert conditions? Only those living in the Southwest, and not much happens around the few sand dunes in the United States.

Was this a Relevant Test of AR vs. M14? Not remotely. Half axxed "Mythbusters" episode - they get a lot wrong with wrong assumptions, too. CC

5MadFarmers

06-05-2015, 12:14

(full disclosure - I tried to get to see the video again, and it still won't let my Windows XP machine in)

Was this a Relevant Test of AR vs. M14? Not remotely. Half axxed "Mythbusters" episode - they get a lot wrong with wrong assumptions, too. CC

If you can't see the video how on earth can you know if it's a relevant test or not? How would you possibly know what assumptions they made if you cannot even see it?

You're responding out of emotion and emotional responses are, by definition, not real rational.

When the M16 was experiencing problems in VN there was a move to correct the discovered issues and, simultaneously with that, a move to "show" that the rifle's problems were either being addressed or were not completely as reported. That the rifle was having problems was clear and I'm not really going on about that. Just setting the stage... On the 23rd of May, 1967, the CBS Evening News showed a segment. In the segment the USMC had a Marine bury an M16 and and M14 in sand and then pull them out and attempt to fire them. The M14 jammed immediately whereas the M16 fired fine. Not terribly different from what's being showed in that video.

No amount of cleaning or lubricating is going to prevent the problem of malfunctions if sand is being blown directly into the action as the rifle is being fired. The assertion that the M16 would jam if it was "loaded" under those conditions isn't, from what I can see, true as that isn't going to materially introduce sand directly into the action. It also isn't going to affect the M14 at all as it's not "sand introduced into the rifle via the magazine" that is causing the problem shown. It's sand blowing directly into the action. Pure speculation on my part: the sand is preventing the bolt from driving all the way forward. That the extractor is not correctly engaging the round seems to be the case. So it's either the sand preventing the bolt lugs from engaging the recesses or it's the sand preventing the bolt from driving fully forward.

The Krag and M-1903, incidentally, would be just as prone as the M14 to this. Both of them have a notice in the manuals issued with them covering that. Not sand specifically - a warning that gunk in the bolt recesses may prevent the lugs from being able to engage as they cannot get into the recesses. Thus an open bolt situation is present. German Commission rifles and Mausers do not suffer from this as the firing pin cannot be released in an unlocked bolt. Regardless the fact that they'd not fire doesn't change that those rifles are also useless if sand fills the bolt lug recesses and the bolt cannot be locked.

The "test" simply shows that guns will not function if you blow sand directly in the action while operating them. The M16 has a cover preventing the sand from entering at that pace and thus keeps firing. Presumably continuing the test over more rounds would also lock the M16 up as the sand will get into the action but, due to the cover, at a slower rate.

Obstructions prevent items from moving. Film at 11.

Col. Colt

06-05-2015, 03:11

I think I'm being pretty logical. The observations don't fit KNOWN REALITY is why I'm objecting. The AR/M16/M4 must be treated very carefully to work in the desert, or failures occur. This is know and has been since we got to Iraq. My friends returning from the sandbox recently have emphasized the absolute need to do a through cleaning, every single day on your M4 - or to expect malfunctions.

Some of us are fairly good at visualization. The test was adequately described to construct a reasonable mental visual by all the prior posters here - these guys are blowing sand over the weapon as it is being fired. Apparently somewhat corse sand (maybe more corse than is likely to get airborne - I'll wait for the video). Sand being sand, all of us understand what that does in a mechanical mechanism, and how blowing it directly on a rifle action can create a problem. I understand English fairly well, and the discussion seemed clear enough - unless there is some special way to blow sand I don't know of - and I operated a pipeline sandblaster for most of a summer in my youth...... Hot under that hood in the Midwestern summertime!

What I did was to note the logical, knowable conditions that may have been factors in the outcome of what was perceived in this made up "test" to show the AR is a better platform in sandy/dusty conditions. What I am pointing out is that the results might have been very different if you were running a real M14 with military tolerances and a long 7.62MM chromed chamber, cared for under the standard training given to every soldier who carried one during Basic - and undoubtedly would be reinforced by their Sgts. as they transported to the dusty war zone. Conversely, there are plenty of reports of the AR/M16 series choking on sand in very recent history - and yet this "test" gives the world the impression things are otherwise. Seems odd to me everyone just accepted the video so easily, knowing recent history, without questioning the method used IN DEPTH. I question the method, because the results give an impression I have not heard expressed by anyone who was there.

A real, military clearanced M1 or M14 usually has some fore and aft/up and down play in the bolt lugs and op rod and the chamber is slightly larger than a civilian version, allowing some clearance for debris - or grains of sand. Thus, if the gun is DRY as per the manual for desert warfare, without lube (or only has a modern thin film lube in the pores of the metal that don't pickup dirt) dry sand will not adhere to the parts, and will be pushed out of the way, and will drop/vibrate free as the gun is fired. If lubed per standard protocol with rifle grease, yes, the sand will stick. But if the gun is dry, per Desert protocol, a Garand type action is completely open at the top, and easy to brush or blow out should that be necessary. Once you have sand in an AR, you need a bench, cleaning gear and some time. You can reach the locking lugs on an M14 or an M1 with your fingers - and you can't reach them AT ALL without disassembling an AR.

We agree sand can stop any weapon, given a chance. We probably also should agree that, properly maintained, all US weapons in the last 100 years were tested in sand and can be kept working, with proper efforts and technique, which is to be found in Basic training or your field manual. But the implication here is that the AR series is great in sand, and the M1 Garand/M14 design sucks in sand, and I don't think that perception is remotely true. Both designs require more work to keep them going in less friendly environments. But neither one has been prohibited from use by the US Military where there is sand....

It is my opinion that a good troop can do just fine with either one, if he knows what he is doing. And if my visual image somehow failed to understand their "test" I'll let you know after I do see the video. I hate having to constantly upgrade my software, leading to a need for new hardware, but that is the computer industry at work! CC

S.A. Boggs

06-05-2015, 03:31

Wonder how the G3 would do?
Sam

5MadFarmers

06-05-2015, 03:50

I think I'm being pretty logical. The observations don't fit KNOWN REALITY is why I'm objecting. The AR/M16/M4 must be treated very carefully to work in the desert, or failures occur. This is know and has been since we got to Iraq. My friends returning from the sandbox recently have emphasized the absolute need to do a through cleaning, every single day on your M4 - or to expect malfunctions.

Without seeing the video you really have no idea on the conditions or the test itself.

First, the M16 and cleaning thing. Whether the M16 is used in the desert, Arctic, my basement, or Disney-world really doesn't change what's happening there: unless it's cleaned the powder residue from that direct impingement system is going to gum up the works eventually. It's an artefact of the design and the environment is really irrelevant as it's not foreign matter (sand) but matter from the system itself. So the M14 doesn't suffer from that but that's the result of having a piston versus skipping it.

Second, the M14 is going to be more sensitive to foreign matter introduced into the action as the action is open. Pour sand on an engine. No significant result. Pull the valve cover gaskets and repeat. Problems will result. The M16 having more of a "closed" action means it permits foreign matter to enter less than designs which have open actions.

Third, to the test itself. The test is accurate as far as it goes. Blow sand into the M14 and it's going to jam. Blow it at the M16 and it won't as the action is "sealed" to a certain extent.

Doesn't mean the test is logical or really that useful. If sand is blowing bad enough to enter the system that rapidly it won't be from a pile of it next to the gun being blown with compressed air. It'll be sand everywhere. Which means you'll not be able to see more than about 5 feet. So I guess the M14 wins that one as it's more sturdy and you're going to need that to beat people to death as they're going to be too close to shoot.

If sand is blowing that hard from a direction, turn the M14 so the floor plate is in the direction of the wind. There, sand isn't being blown into it. Holding the rifle sideways will decrease your use of the sight but, again, with visibility limited you're pretty much just shooting in a compass direction anyway.

If the sand is blowing that hard, and does regularly, do not lube the M14. With the chamber area being dry, and sand being dry, holding the rifle upside down will permit gravity to clean the sand out in a downward direction. Either pull the trigger in that orientation or turn it sideways. Again, visibility is causing more harm than sand getting into the weapon. Lube will permit the sand to stick.

So, yes, guns with open actions are going to jam with sand blowing around that that rate. "Action covers" existed for guns from the 1890s into the 1950s. Krags, M-1903s, SMLEs, and the M1 carbine. Probably others and later. It's to keep the action clean of debris in those situations. When the sand settles down visibility returns and you then ensure the gun isn't gummed up and start banging away. If somebody shows up before the sand dies down I'd suggest the use of an entrenching shovel. Sand doesn't jam those.

So the test is accurate as far as it goes. What it proves is M14s don't operate well in sand storms. Neither do humans. Nor motor transport. In other news, cars don't run well underwater, solar panels don't work well in thunderstorms, and pork doesn't sell well in Jordan.

Interested in reading more? I'd suggest tracking down a book titled: "a job of pipe." Royal Engineer in North Africa during the Rommel/Montgomery thing. During sand storms everyone pretty much tries to find a spot that it's not blowing up your nose or in your mouth. Masks help but aren't 100% effective. No doubt why the shooter in that film is wearing a gas mask. That'd get real old in the desert real fast.

usmc69

06-05-2015, 04:21

Doubt if mine will be used in a really sandy environment. Unless I am called to the beach to repel invaders..........my house to the beach is four miles as the crow flies.

Rock

06-06-2015, 11:13

If sand is blowing that hard from a direction, turn the M14 so the floor plate is in the direction of the wind. There, sand isn't being blown into it. Holding the rifle sideways will decrease your use of the sight but, again, with visibility limited you're pretty much just shooting in a compass direction anyway.

Good point, I would be trying to cover a rifle with anything available in those conditions. I've seen quite a few photos of Lee Enfields with web action covers. Wouldn't be a bad idea for an M14. Also, I have seen photos of troops on D Day entering landing craft with M1's in full length plastic bags. They knew that sand in mechanisms was a problem and developed ways to minimize it.

PhillipM

06-07-2015, 03:04

I was just watching d-day on h2 and one of the vets on Omaha described he and other unarmed scattered troops being made into an ad hoc platoon by a lieutenant. First order: Every man find a weapon. Second order: Spread out your raincoats and clean them! After that they assaulted the sea wall and got off the beach.

gunner312

07-17-2015, 08:53

I NEVER had problems like that with my M14 that I carried through the mud sand and slush of every where from Hawaii through Vietnam.

My opinion is that rather than a malfunctioning rifle that was jammed by sand, they had a malfunctioning Magazine that was affected by the sand and dirt. I have had that problem, new magazine fixed the problem. Also, didn't appear that any lubriplate was on the bolt or slideways, but I couldn't really tell.

Just my 2cents worth.

Jim Wright

PhillipM

07-18-2015, 04:32

Thanks, Gunner.

Your opinion carries a lot more weight than youtube heroes.

Ted Brown

07-18-2015, 10:52

I've brought this up before, but while firing my M14 in a Rattle Battle at Ft. Ord years ago, sand jammed the action to the point it seriously bent the operating rod and disabled the rifle. This was due to my failure to remove the grease I normally lubed it with in less sandy conditions. For those that never shot at Ft. Ord, the range was on the beach just north of Monterey. That took me out of the match. I shot there again with a degreased rifle and won the leg match to earn my Distinguished Rifleman Badge (USAF No. 214). Stuff happens, but it shows that one should always be prepared for any conditions.

da gimp

07-18-2015, 05:35

Dern Ted, I was just going to opine that this scenario would never arise in the real world.. and a well trained armorer/rifle smith had it happen to him here in the USA...............

In Dad's outfit in the Aleutians, during the fighting there, some men's Garands froze up ... they learned to completely degrease the rifles & to run them dry & had no more problems... When they were in Europe in 1944... he made sure the men of his company ran their rifles dry... and to get boots 1/2 size or 1 size big so that they could wear multiple pairs of warm wool socks & still have room for their feet to expand......Lessons leaned from earlier similar situations... prevents the same problems from arising.

I'm glad Ted told of us of his fix for that problem... I love that old M1A...........

StockDoc

07-18-2015, 08:17

StockDoc

07-18-2015, 08:22

Without seeing the video you really have no idea on the conditions or the test itself.

First, the M16 and cleaning thing. Whether the M16 is used in the desert, Arctic, my basement, or Disney-world really doesn't change what's happening there: unless it's cleaned the powder residue from that direct impingement system is going to gum up the works eventually. It's an artefact of the design and the environment is really irrelevant as it's not foreign matter (sand) but matter from the system itself. So the M14 doesn't suffer from that but that's the result of having a piston versus skipping it.

.

Disney World, really, man you are sick, guns owners have enough problems without people like you putting that Sheet on a forum

Clark Howard

07-25-2015, 07:11

goo

07-25-2015, 09:36

for a valid test they shoulda used at least two different rifles.

using one rifle to define how all rifles will perform is stoopid

Art

07-25-2015, 11:48

Since the M-16 operating problems came up in the mid-sixties, those who backed the switch over from M-14 to M-16 have been trying to justify the cancellation of the M-14 production program. The argument will go on for years. Having used both weapons in Vietnam, I prefer the M-14. The 16 has it's place, and it does offer some advantages in weight, but the most important attribute in a properly maintained combat weapon is reliability. The M-14 has it, the M-16 does not. Just my opinion. Regards, Clark

Neither rifle is an AK 47 when it comes to ease of maintenance and reliability (which is why the Rooskie design is my preference for serious social encounters.) The M14 is a lot more reliable than the original M16s and still has an edge on the current versions. However I have experienced, as I said in a previous post, exactly the malfunction demonstrated in the video with an M14 and I carried the weapon a lot when I was in the Army. So I think the Garand system (M1, M14) is generally more reliable than the Stoner system M16, M4) in most circumstances, an opinion based on very extensive use of the former and a good bit of use with the latter as well.

Col. Colt

07-25-2015, 12:01

The test is still invalid - because it implies a result NOT OBSERVED in the real world, by real end users of both platforms. If your Theory does not work in Reality, you need to change your Theory - because REALITY DOES NOT CHANGE. But Youtube lets everyone "prove their point" and get their fifteen minutes of fame - even if they are wrong or ignorant.

M14s (real, USGI ones) are not know for problems in desert warfare use. M16/M4s are KNOWN to be problamatic in the Desert - our troops have field reports that verify this. I just talked to an Iraq War veteran yesterday who emphasized the need for daily, active through care of the M4 in the desert just to keep it running - and how much trouble you were in when sand/dust got down in the M4's bolt lug area - much more difficult to clear out than an M14 - impossible to fix quickly.

A Springfield Armory M1A, with cast reciever and miscellaneous parts from miscellaneous sources built to unknown tolerances - and with a commercial grade, plain/stainless steel, tight, minimum .308 Match chamber vs. a military 7.62MM longer throated, chromed GI barrel is NOT an M14 - and not to be considered representitive of real, USGI military M14 performance for reliability testing. Especially if the user didn't have the US Military training in adjusting to environmental variables.

And M14 period GIs were taught what level of lube to use in the cold, sand, or jungle in training, it's in the Field Manual. And their rifles were smooth, well broken in, tested and zeroed, by the time they were deployed, too. Believe what you will - but a dry or semi-dry M14 will be fine in the desert - you will always have to fuss with the M16. Look it up. CC

Art

07-25-2015, 12:22

And M14 period GIs were taught what level of lube to use in the cold, sand, or jungle in training, it's in the Field Manual. And their rifles were smooth, well broken in, tested and zeroed, by the time they were deployed, too. Believe what you will - but a dry or semi-dry M14 will be fine in the desert - you will always have to fuss with the M16. Look it up. CC

...and therein lies the rub. You see I was a 1960s M14 period GI who used "real M14s" and carried one....a lot in Korea. I was never taught any of that stuff and neither was anyone in my basic training unit, and neither was anyone I served with. Maybe they were in Infantry A.I.T. but I wouldn't know about that and neither would thousands of G.I.s who were not in the infantry. The fact is we were taught to clean our weapons and lube them with light machine oil, that was it. I took impeccable care of my weapon and had it seize up on two occasions and I wasn't the only one. I know now that some form of gun grease would have solved the problem I delt with (rain and mud) but no unit I was assigned to ever issued anything like that. The M14 and the M16 both require too much maintenance, and too many steps to disassemble (especially the M14) for my taste. The big problem with the M16 series of rifles is that they create their own crud. Our son who carried an M4 in the "Sand Box" told us one of the biggest problems, maintenance wise, is that the powers that be refuse to issue solvent claiming that C.L.P. is the wonder lube that solves everything; Well it doesn't and he would be the first to tell you that.

By the way, when I was in the army I never saw an M14 field manual, and I can just about guarantee that no one I served with ever saw, or if they did, was required to become familiar with an F.M. on the M14.

ridgerunner

07-25-2015, 12:50

Gentlemen,
I went through basic with the M14. It was, I thought a good semi auto weapon. I was put on a BAR, for awhile. Heavy, but it worked. Then.... they gave me a select fire M14. I thought this is good. Light, works good, I know from past experience.
I could not get a complete magazine emptied on full auto. Two bursts, and a jam,, on 'every' magazine in the M14. I remember thinking, I'm dead. Got overseas, and 'issued' an M16. Not perfect, at that time, but better than that damn M14. I also used a thumb eater for a while. ( M1.)
My own preference runs toward the L1A1, or FALs ( for .30 cal. ) and an AR 15 that is put together properly, using the right components.
This is just from my own experience. I'm sure other's have had better.

goo

07-25-2015, 01:05

if an m-16 wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be good enough.

31717

31718

delta, 1/1, 1970.

i know this to be true....... mostly because i ain't dead.

bloopers is better for killing pussy cats, though

31719

:)

ridgerunner

07-25-2015, 03:06

They got one at Kontum that had a GI by his head. He did survive. ( the GI. Not the kitty. ) I 'assume' they used 16s. ( bad word. assume ) Probably a trifle noisy, for a few seconds.

Happened a few days before I got dropped into the area. They did bandage the GIs head, up, a 'little'.

jeffj

08-13-2015, 07:00

Let's not forget the ar direct impingement system blows out of the chamber with every ejection. They did the perfect test to favor that system.

Griff Murphey

08-13-2015, 08:23

I think there is a tendency for commanders to fail to emphasize weapon maintenance. This is probably a function of their own interest in and practical experience with firearms. The best illustration I can give of this is that when 1-4 Marines left Okinawa for Frequent Wind and Eagle Pull, the battalion basically left without any gun cleaning gear. I cannot say there wasn't any of it but I can tell you after a few days at sea all of the officers' pistols and many of the shotguns were red with rust. The M-16s did better....

I am not surprised at the combat veterans' comments about lack of cleaning and lubricating oils and solvents.

I can't tell you about combat, but can tell you about Army ROTC advanced camp and back at my College - our M-14s, which were basically new guns, ran like Swiss watches with blanks and ball. Many had selectors fitted and they ran great. Uncontrollable but reliable, 100 pct. They were cleaned weekly using light weapons oil and bore cleaner. We had grease in the little pots but never used it since it looked sloppy I guess. I saw military match shooters using it at matches but we didn't.

My brother who is 10 years older went through ROTC summer camp on the M-1, and found them very unreliable. Those guns were worn out. He has creds, he was a 5V lifetime master and NRA instructor.

Major Tom

08-15-2015, 04:55

Griff Murphey

08-15-2015, 08:21

I served in 'Nam with the M14. The 7.62 round could penetrate heavy brush and even trees which is good. I never saw a M14 manual and never was advised as to what lube to use either. When I was handed a M60 I was given the manual for that which I still have BTW.

I am curious about the individuals who say they never saw M-14 manuals. I understand the M-14 came in in 1961 with the Berlin Brigade the first to equip with it. I was shown tech movies on it in 1964 in high school. When I got to college in 1967 it was in our individual weapons and marksmanship manual along with the M-1 etc. but we still had M-1s. We received our M-14s in '68, and had plenty of manuals.

My question for the individuals who never saw an M-14 manual is just out of curiosity: Were you trained stateside on M-1s or M-14s? How much marksmanship training did you get, full KD or Trainfire qualification, or familiarization firing only? What year did you get to Vietnam?

I would think ROTC would be at the very bottom of the priority list of who got what but maybe not. SNAFU?!

13Echo

08-15-2015, 09:08

I was trained on the M14 in Basic at Ft. Polk in 1967. We were thoroughly instructed in maintenance and lubrication of the rifle but we never saw a manual except what showed up in the maintenance magazine with Connie Rod and MSgt Halfmast. As for training there was marksmanship training out to 450meters using paper targets to sight in then mostly trainfire reactive targets. I would have liked more range time but I felt very familiar and comfortable with my rifle and trusted it to deliver the bullet where I aimed and to function no matter what. As an artilleryman I had an M14 for the entire three years of service and never was issued a manual. However the the appropriate TMs were kept in the Battery Orderly room and armory and were available if needed. Requalification was with paper targets out to 500yds and the battalion actively participated in the Division rifle matches. We might have been cannon cockers but we could still shoot a rifle.

Jerry Liles

13Echo

08-15-2015, 09:18

I need to add that considering all the problems the grunts were having with the M16 air rifle we were happy to keep our M14s. At that time the M14 was far more reliable than the M16. It has colored my opinion of the M16 ever since and I just have never cottoned to that rifle.

I never fired an M16 till I came back as a Doctor in the Medical Corps. They had the entire hospital medical staff out on the Ft. Lewis range for familiarization. A real circus that was. There were just enough former enlisted Docs to keep it from a complete cluster.

Jerry Liles

Art

08-15-2015, 04:47

I am curious about the individuals who say they never saw M-14 manuals. I understand the M-14 came in in 1961 with the Berlin Brigade the first to equip with it. I was shown tech movies on it in 1964 in high school. When I got to college in 1967 it was in our individual weapons and marksmanship manual along with the M-1 etc. but we still had M-1s. We received our M-14s in '68, and had plenty of manuals.

My question for the individuals who never saw an M-14 manual is just out of curiosity: Were you trained stateside on M-1s or M-14s? How much marksmanship training did you get, full KD or Trainfire qualification, or familiarization firing only? What year did you get to Vietnam?

I would think ROTC would be at the very bottom of the priority list of who got what but maybe not. SNAFU?!

I was at Fort Polk for Basic Combat Training form June - August 1966. We spent two days on maintenance, learning to disassemble, reassemble and clean the weapon, then two weeks on the range on the trainfire course disassembling and cleaning the weapon every day after firing. I was stunned to learn I could actually hit something at 300 meters. After two weeks we shot for record on a very difficult course involving multiple situations that none of us had seen. We also spend one day on a fire and maneuver assault course (I did this in the pouring rain, it was the first time my M14 seized up and I could not clear it.) We then spent another day on live fire defensive situations. I would estimate I fired between 800 and 900 rounds of ammunition total during basic. During this period I never saw a manual, in fact I never saw an M14 manual the entire time I was in the Army. I was never taught anything about lubrication except to coat all parts with a thin film of oil after cleaning. That was it. Interestingly I fired the M14 for qualification on the SR target while I was part of the cadre at Redstone Arsenal, never knew my score, they just told me I passed.

I was not a Viet Nam veteran. Because of my MOS I was sent to Korea at the end of 1967 where my issue weapon was an M14 that I trucked around (literally) a lot and fired two or three times with the rest of the guys at an improvised range that couldn't have been longer than 50 yards. Interestingly when we got two M60 machine guns and I was put in charge of them I was given an M60 manual to learn maintenance from (this was the only manual I read that didn't pertain to the Nike Hercules missile system) since I had never seen or touched a real M60; I suspect no one else had either since they gave me the job.

When I was in the Army and for quite a while after I got out ROTC and most national guard units used the M1.

Griff Murphey

08-16-2015, 07:55

They always loaded us down with manuals in ROTC in high school and college. We had 22-5 Drill and Ceremonies, individual weapons and marksmanship which was a pretty good general compilation that I think was number 145, had a gray cover. In high school I remember a manual on combat which advised freezing in the light of a bursting flare and the art showed a British style "tin 'at" helmet. In college the Logistics manual was sought after as it had an example of the Army drivers' license. San Antonio was a military town and there were a lot of college girls carrying Army drivers' licenses and who would have thought them 'lil gals could drive M-60 tanks?

Art

08-16-2015, 09:12

Griff, the only manuals I ever saw before I got to Korea were on the Nike Hercules missile.

PhillipM

08-16-2015, 09:59

Art, so when your M14 froze in the rain, it had no grease?

Art

08-16-2015, 11:26

Art, so when your M14 froze in the rain, it had no grease?

Yup. it was only lubed with the equivalent of 3 in 1 oil. I never saw rifle grease while I was in the Army; in fact I never knew rifle grease existed until I was middle aged. The malfunction would almost surely have been prevented by rifle grease and incidents like mine are the reason rifle grease was issued for the M1 early in its career. The Garand action should absolutely be greased in most circumstances and always in the wet. Fortunately it only happened to me in training!!!

PhillipM

08-18-2015, 11:11

Yup. it was only lubed with the equivalent of 3 in 1 oil. I never saw rifle grease while I was in the Army; in fact I never knew rifle grease existed until I was middle aged. The malfunction would almost surely have been prevented by rifle grease and incidents like mine are the reason rifle grease was issued for the M1 early in its career. The Garand action should absolutely be greased in most circumstances and always in the wet. Fortunately it only happened to me in training!!!

I spoke with a West Point graduate who when he was a cadet in 1966 ish had his M14 hang up due to lack of maintenance. He was color guard, so his rifle was never inspected, so he never cleaned it. He had never heard of grease either till I brought it up.

13Echo

08-18-2015, 12:04

Maybe artillery was different but we oiled and greased our rifles. In winter in Germany we stripped the grease for really cold weather. The grease points were about the same as for the M1 except for the roller which the TM said should be oiled and the op rod cam recess was not greased. I tend to use more grease on my M1a than I did on my M14, perhaps because I've been shooting an M1 Garand a lot. I'm especially anal about the roller. Why the TM didn't want it greased I do not know but mine gets greased.

Jerry Liles

StockDoc

08-18-2015, 01:12

I heard that is real dusty climates the M14 is also run dry with no problems.

13Echo

08-18-2015, 01:46

Tropical, temperate, and wet climates - Grease!

Very cold - run dry or dry lubes*.

Extreme dust and sand - run dry or dry lubes and brush off the dust and sand often. An old fashion shaving brush does the job.

Worked for the M1 and works for the M14. I think of these rifles as having been designed for tractor mechanics - big parts, lots of grease and lube. The M16 is more like a precision sewing machine (but a very deadly and competent sewing machine) in its design and requirements for lube.

*We have a lube for the cryostats that we use for frozen sections at the hospital that would likely work for a cold lube. We run the cryostats at -22*C

Art

08-18-2015, 06:26

13Echo

08-18-2015, 06:57

The Bn and Battery had enough senior NCOs that had been to Korea, and, I think the CSM was in WW II as well, and understood what an M1 needed to function so we used their experience to make certain our M14s did the same.
Jerry Liles

PhillipM

08-18-2015, 11:41

13Echo

08-19-2015, 04:20

No. I'm from Monroe and shoot at a private range and the Ouachita Parish Sheriff's range. Only for fun matches like the Vintage rifle match. There are some really serious pistol shooters around here though.

Driver 8

08-31-2015, 05:20

Art

09-01-2015, 12:54

Just a couple things come to mind.

The stock is not USGI and includes a scope rail. In my humble opinion, that stock / rail combo attracts dirt like a magnet.

Has anyone considered that they might be shooting 7.62 mm NATO surplus ammo in a gun chambered in .308? I'm sure that tjhis would occur. They are not the same. .308 NO GO is 7.62mm GO.

Regards,

Driver 8

They made a point in the video of showing the ammo box they were using which was Federal commercial ammunition made especially for the M1A so that wasn't the problem.

The problem is the Garand action. If you lube it appropriately for the conditions you happen to be in at the time the problems are mitigated, but the Garand action does require a lot of attention to lubrication and this does vary with the conditions. It does help a lot, as well, if the people who are training you inform you of the above facts and you are provided with the stuff you need to lube or not lube it as necessary reliability suffers. More modern rifles aren't as picky about that stuff.

As an aside, our son who toted around an M4 for quite a few years in the Air Force told us it would have been really, really nice if the military would issue solvent which would really ease the maintenance chores especially since the M16 weapons series, like all direct impingement systems creates its own gung. The official line is that CLP is all you need, well I don't know if that's true but I have it from a reliable source that a good solvent whisks away that residue very quickly, some things never change it seems.

Oh, these guys aren't novices, they know the right way to clear a failure to extract and it is not klcking the op rod handle. I was never taught that in the Army either :icon_scratch:.

Ted Brown

09-04-2015, 09:42

Rock

09-04-2015, 11:51

I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Proper maintenance and lubrication (for the conditions) should be a normal part of everyone's shooting regimen. Those who don't know how to take care of their weapons shouldn't be shooting.

I agree. The Garand also would have malfunctioned during that test but it earned a good reputation in two major wars.

Rock

09-05-2015, 09:54

Proper rifle maintenance was stressed in this WW2 training film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XMwnGoazX4

13Echo

09-06-2015, 04:40

Wow! A left handed Garand. Can't be many of them!

Art

09-06-2015, 07:28

I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Proper maintenance and lubrication (for the conditions) should be a normal part of everyone's shooting regimen. Those who don't know how to take care of their weapons shouldn't be shooting.

Wellllll, I guess none of the people I served in the Army with from 1966-1969 should have been shooting because none of us knew about proper lubrication for the M14, we weren't taught nor were we given the proper supplies. Whose fault would that be???? I do know how to lubricate a Garand system rifle now but didn't learn about it until I got my first CMP M1 and read the excellent manual that came with it. It's obvious from this thread that my experience wasn't atypical and a bunch of people in the military with non combat arms MOS did learn to maintain the weapon in various conditions because there were old timers around who taught them after basic training.

Rock is correct that an M1 almost surely would have malfunctioned in the same conditions.

Some modern rifles like the AK47 or M16 aren't as finicky about the proper lube for the conditions but can have other issues. Nothing's perfect you know.

Col. Colt

09-06-2015, 10:42

ART, the info was right there in the manual they didin't give you, and the lube was in the warehouses - lots available today! - they just didn't tell everyone. Incompetent Training. Not the M14's fault.

The M16/M4 is VERY finicky about clean and lubed - my friends back from the sandbox stripped and cleaned and relubed DAILY. The AK has reliability - and little else to recommend it. The AK, the ultimate peasant's weapon was designed with little care in mind. But in a test of M16A1 vs. AK by the military, both Vietnam bring backs, issue ammo for both, a skilled Army marksman could not hit a silhouette at 200 meters with the AK, put all rounds from the M16 in a six inch group - on the silhouette. I'll put up with a little maintenance. CC

Rock

09-06-2015, 11:31

Wellllll, I guess none of the people I served in the Army with from 1966-1969 should have been shooting because none of us knew about proper lubrication for the M14, we weren't taught nor were we given the proper supplies. Whose fault would that be????

Judging from the lack of user complaints about service rifes, it would seem that the services emphasized proper weapon maintenance during WW1, WW2 and probably Korea as well. From Art's experience and the rumors about the 'self cleaning' M16 of the late 60's, it sounds as if maintenance of all weapons was somewhat ignored during that time.

I would guess that a lightly dirty M1 or M14 will function better than an M16 that eventually collects the same amount of debris in the mechanism. The difference is the amount of shielding of the respective actions. A rifleman who is aware of the openings of his M1 is more likely to look after his rifle and open it up to remove dirt. A M16 rifleman, knowing his rifle action is somewhat sealed, may let maintenance go longer and perhaps run into trouble at a very bad time.

Rock

09-06-2015, 11:58

The M16/M4 is VERY finicky about clean and lubed - my friends back from the sandbox stripped and cleaned and relubed DAILY.

That's why they work as well as they do. A similarly maintained M1 or M14 will work as well. However, blowing large amounts of dirt into an unshielded M1/M14 mechanism will cause stoppages as seen in the video. Shielding an action is good but I have had some pretty nasty jams in my AR15 that required 3 hands and a lot of time to clear because of that shielding. With a M1/M14 it is much easier to clear similar jams.

The AK has reliability - and little else to recommend it. The AK, the ultimate peasant's weapon was designed with little care in mind. But in a test of M16A1 vs. AK by the military, both Vietnam bring backs, issue ammo for both, a skilled Army marksman could not hit a silhouette at 200 meters with the AK

In peasant hands, I consider the AK as a fragmentation grenade with a trigger. Sights are not used and the peasants just sprinkle an area with metal until they accidentally hit something. That ability and the reliability do make it the perfect peasant weapon but a marksman who sights in his AK can do fairly well at the shorter ranges.

13Echo

09-06-2015, 12:39

The AK design can be made to shoot accurately just not the usual issue weapon. The Israelis made a version that was a creditable rifle and reasonably accurate if not a target rifle. The usual issue AK has the precision and careful fitting of a cheap shovel, the ergonomics of a tree stump and the precision sights of a Daisy BB gun (well the BB gun is probably better). It is a lead hose that always works and is d**n near Siberian peasant proof. It fits Stalin's dictum that "quantity has a quality all its own." A lot to be said for a rifle that always works even if it isn't particularly accurate.

Jerry Liles

Art

09-08-2015, 10:57

In peasant hands, I consider the AK as a fragmentation grenade with a trigger. Sights are not used and the peasants just sprinkle an area with metal until they accidentally hit something. That ability and the reliability do make it the perfect peasant weapon but a marksman who sights in his AK can do fairly well at the shorter ranges.

Russia in the 50's was not exactly a peasant nation in the usual sense. The image of Tsarist Russia, semi feudal with the majority of its inhabitants semi literate field hands hasn't really existed for at least 75 years. When the AK 47 was developed (late 1940s to mid 1950s) The Soviet Union was an industrialized country with a highly educated population capable of operating high performance aircraft, nuclear submarines and a space program. Of course its economic system was doomed to fail but that's really a separate issue.

The climate of Russia varies from harsh to brutal for much of the year and the commissars placed a high emphasis on simplicity of maintenance and reliability in their weapons and the AK 47 and its derivatives fit into that well. Those characteristics also made it a useful weapon in the hands of real peasants in "Wars of National Liberation" starting in the late 1960s when production really ramped up beyond Soviet needs.

Soviet infantry doctrine was the primary dictator of what the AK 47 turned out to be. We decided that an assault rifle should be heavy on the "rifle" part and precision marksmanship was emphasized in training and despite the fact that the M16 was very controllable in full auto fire that part was neglected. The Soviets, on the other hand, looked on the AK 47 as a long range submachine gun, capable of engaging the enemy with automatic suppressing fire out to perhaps 250 meters.

I have found, in my experience at least that the AK47s reputation for inaccuracy is a bit overstated. It has mediocre sights and a sight radius not much longer than some hunting pistols, but with my el cheapon WASR 10 I can keep all of my shots in the torso of a silhouette target at 200 yards, and with my Russian red dot sight can hold the head of the target at that distance. with an M16, probably the most accurate military rifle ever made by anyone anywhere I can consistently hit the head of a silhouette target at 200 yards no problem using the iron sights.

PhillipM

09-08-2015, 03:53

I spoke with a West Point graduate who when he was a cadet in 1966 ish had his M14 hang up due to lack of maintenance. He was color guard, so his rifle was never inspected, so he never cleaned it. He had never heard of grease either till I brought it up.

On further questioning, he had never heard of greasing an M14 till I mentioned it. He was at the point from 1964-68, then Ranger school, and then the 82nd AB as a commo officer in Vietnam. Never heard of grease.

Griff Murphey

09-09-2015, 05:17

None of my guns are subjected to combat conditions. Usually I wipe the exterior down with Hoppes. If going for storage I may use any of the preservative spray oils, applied with a patch. Occasionally I put a drop of LSA on the receiver rails, underside of the bolt, and op rod spring. Sometimes on op rod springs I use outboard motor grease, similar to Libriplate. They run very well.

Major Tom

09-09-2015, 05:23

Ever since my tour in 'Nam where I carried the M14, I have considered the M14 superior to the M16.

UUURah

09-09-2015, 05:33

If the M-1 was truly "the finest battle implement ever devised by man ..." as Patton said, and the M-14 corrected all the "flaws" in the M-1, then what does that make the M-14?

I don't guess all you M-14 haters care to answer that....

Art

09-09-2015, 07:00

I am not a "hater" of the Garand system. I carried an M14 in the military and I enjoy shooting them, they just wouldn't be my first choice today for a weapon for "serious social interactions."

When it was put into service in 1936 the M1 was the best infantry rifle in the world by a lot. Garand corrected some real design flaws in the M1 in the M14, one thing that particularly bugged me about the M1 feed system was that the follower can be put in backwards just as easily as it can be put in correctly. When this occurs it is impossible to load a clip into the weapon. I understand that in when the M1 was the service weapon every day "boots" on the range were getting their butts chewed for incorrectly assembling the rifle. Unfortunately the rifle was very easy to assemble incorrectly. The M14 by going to a box magazine not only fixed this problem but eliminated a bunch of small parts that could be very easily lost when dismounting the rifle in the field for cleaning, especially in the field. I especially liked the fact that the little pin used to retain the operating spring assembly is captive on the M14. The rifles are also finicky about lubrication.

Chesty Puller considered the M1 inferior to the M1903 and continued to hold it until the results in combat were too obvious to be ignored.

I have an emotional attachment to vintage firearms when it comes to history and recreational shooting, they connect me to another time. I do not have an emotional attachment to weapons when it comes to staying alive. An M14, properly cared for and lubricated for the conditions one finds oneself in can still be a useful combat weapon, and is still used by the military for specialty jobs. It just wouldn't be my first or second choice today if I had to depend on one rifle.

Just my devalued $.05

nf1e

09-09-2015, 07:27

I would like to point back to post #4. There is no comparison between and M14 and a SAI M1A other that a similarity in appearance. Having used both the M14 and the M16 in Viet Nam in the 60s, I would not have to think twice about my choice in a hostile situation. The M14 is numero uno on all counts. I don't know about the Army, but in the Marine Corps, we were taught proper maintenance and lubrication. My weapons were cleaned at least once per day and quite a bit more often if I had the time. We found that with the M16, often a man's first shot was his last. That will not happen again on my watch.

Semper Fi
Art

purple

09-09-2015, 10:24

It's always interesting to hear about the "sand cuts" on the bolt carrier of the British L1A1 FAL. I was trained on and used the Canadian C1A1 FAL which didn't have these and we did use the rifle in sandy conditions. Any rifle will tend to clog in the sand, even the old desert standby the Lee-Enfield. One of the really nice things about the FN was that it could be so easily stripped to major parts for rapid cleaning in the field, so I really don't think that the sand cuts would have made any difference. The keys to success in the sand are user training and vigilance, very little oil, and the availability of suitable cleaning brushes.

Art

09-09-2015, 05:48

I talked to a friend tonight who was in the Marine Corps from 1964-1970. He told me that they used the M14 in Boot Camp and the M1 in Infantry school at that time. He also said that they were issued Lubri-Plate for use with both weapons and taught how to lubricate them for all conditions; competent administration is a wonderful thing. He has also told met that the problems with the M16 early on were due to improper training, especially the doctrine that the weapon was not to be cleaned, compounded by defective Winchester ball powder ammunition which was not only very dirty but way overpressure as well. He does prefer the Garand system.

Rock

09-10-2015, 12:22

Garand corrected some real design flaws in the M1 in the M14, one thing that particularly bugged me about the M1 feed system was that the follower can be put in backwards just as easily as it can be put in correctly. When this occurs it is impossible to load a clip into the weapon. I understand that in when the M1 was the service weapon every day "boots" on the range were getting their butts chewed for incorrectly assembling the rifle. Unfortunately the rifle was very easy to assemble incorrectly. The M14 by going to a box magazine not only fixed this problem but eliminated a bunch of small parts that could be very easily lost when dismounting the rifle in the field for cleaning, especially in the field. I especially liked the fact that the little pin used to retain the operating spring assembly is captive on the M14.

I know that some dislike certain design features of the M1 but I never considered the M1 a flawed design. It worked the way the Army intended.

I can see how an error could be made but that's the first I've heard about widespread follower assembly errors by troops. Also, although it is not taught in the Army manuals, it is possible to remove the Op Rod and Bolt without removing that pin and and all the small parts. This 'shortcut' makes M1 disassembly as simple as M14 disassembly. I do it all the time.

Art

09-10-2015, 06:55

I know that some dislike certain design features of the M1 but I never considered the M1 a flawed design. It worked the way the Army intended.

I can see how an error could be made but that's the first I've heard about widespread follower assembly errors by troops. Also, although it is not taught in the Army manuals, it is possible to remove the Op Rod and Bolt without removing that pin and and all the small parts. This 'shortcut' makes M1 disassembly as simple as M14 disassembly. I do it all the time.

I don't think it was widespread after training and I don't think it happened in training after the instructors jumped the first couple of basic trainees or boots showed up on the line with a rifle that couldn't be clip loaded and paid the price so I want to clarify that. People with all levels of mechanical competence and attention to detail show up in basic training.

I think there is a subtle difference between a design flaw as in something that had room for improvement but doesn't affect the functioning of the weapon, and a flawed design meaning the weapon (or any other device) does not function as intended. I think the lack of a true ejector on the Lee Enfield rifles is a design flaw, while it works most of the time, ejection is always weak and if the little extractor spring which is necessary to press the cartridge case against the left receiver wall weakens significantly at all, and it will eventually, ejection becomes problematic with maddening regularity. While the M1 follower design works as intended when assembled properly it doesn't work if the follower is reversed which is very easy to do. Just one small change in design would have made it impossible to install the follower incorrectly.

I think that the fact that in most Mauser rifles a round can't be loaded directly in the chamber is a flaw restricting the user to five rounds. A trick was developed to get around this that was actually taught, at least in some countries to allow the weapon to be carried with five rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. This doesn't make the basic design flawed its just an area that have been easily corrected and was in the M1903 rifle but never was in the classic Mauser 98 design.

Cecil

09-20-2015, 01:56

Without seeing the video you really have no idea on the conditions or the test itself.

I saw the video and that was sand in the extreme. I've owned 17 M1A's in my lifetime some of which were fired in very miserable conditions . Unless there was a "Zombie Apocalypse" why would you shoot under those conditions with large chunks of sandy rock in relative gale force wind. That's the only way that large stuff could jump in the chamber. If I throw enough dirt at any weapon I'm guaranteed a failure. Give me realistic sand with realistic wind then we'll see.

Rock

09-21-2015, 09:10

Unless there was a "Zombie Apocalypse" why would you shoot under those conditions with large chunks of sandy rock in relative gale force wind. That's the only way that large stuff could jump in the chamber. If I throw enough dirt at any weapon I'm guaranteed a failure.

While these types of tests are interesting, they are also misleading. The Garand action was a very successful design. It was exposed to just about every environment on earth. It would not work if filled with that much dirt and sand. That was understood and the rifle was designed so that it could be quickly disassembled to remove debris. I think that most, if not all, bolt action rifles would have been disabled by the amount of dirt and sand used in the video. Sealing every opening on a rifle is one way to keep them operating in extreme conditions but I have yet to see one that is so air tight that dust is unable to enter. Dust will cause malfunctions in the M16 as we have seen in the current wars.

Malfunctions caused by foreign matter will be a thing of the past when a hermetically sealed action is designed or moving parts are eliminated. Otherwise, all service rifles need periodic maintenance.

ripsaw

10-10-2015, 05:20

A lot of what has been written here is good, but I must disagree with your assertions about the rifles needing to be broken in Art....and the assertion that most combat infantry soldiers rifles were broken in before combat use. This is simply not the case. The M14 was shipped in a ready to be fired condition from the containers, and did fire, and fire well with minimal or no issues, dry, un-lubed, ever.

I trained at San Diego with both the M1 and the M14 and we never heard of grease or oil on them. Torn down, cleaned, then reassembled, dry. No failures reported in my company., under many adverse conditions.

A properly built M14 such as the ones coming out of the big four makers shops, would fire as intended without issues. Dry. There was no need to break one in. I get a real kick and a laugh these days when I read all over the net....My rifle won't function. Did you lube it properly, change your ammo? I pay $1600 for a rifle, it better work dry and shoot anything I put in it. SAI gets too many free passes today under this "grease it, it will break in" umbrella. If it has functioning problems with no grease, something is wrong to begin with in the rifle....and it's usually in the receiver. Do yourselves a favor and get rid of the older receiver rifles that require grease to run, and buy yourselves a Gunworks of L.A. receiver. Problem solved.

I spent the last two years making sure it was exactly like the real deal and perfect in every way to the originals. There are those that will tell you it never happened, and I had nothing top do with it at all, but I have proof. I certainly do not wish to help them sell any of their receivers after the way I was done, but facts are facts and I don't lie. They are the best I've ever seen and are modeled from an original H&R M14 receiver. The only thing done differently is the full auto lug is removed, the op rod take down notch moved, and the connector arm assembly retaining notch deleted.

And for God's sake people, quit piling all this grease in your M1's and M14's. It is ridiculous and does absolutely nothing to help the function of them. Matter of fact, it hurts the function in many cases. It was probably all started by a grease manufacturer on the net.

UUURah

10-10-2015, 08:59

nf1e

10-10-2015, 09:37

Personally I have been using grease on my M1s and M14s for 50 years as I was taught in the Marine Corps. Metal to metal contact gets grease, all other surfaces get a light coating of oil. The above post # 82 masks absolutely no sense in the real world.
On two separate occasions, while on active duty, I was issued new M14s which were well lubed and cycled by our armorers before putting them out, with careful instructions not to allow them to run dry. Even for inspection arms, lube was looked for and the rifles were not dry.

Semper Fi
Art

ripsaw

10-11-2015, 04:23

ripper, that's one of the most illiterate postings I have ever read on here.

Should I listen to you and NOT put any grease on my M-1's or M1A's the next time I fire them?

OR, should I listen to my old departed Parris Island Drill Instructors AND personal Range Instructors who drilled it into our heads for 13 weeks how to use those neat little Tubs of Garand Grease on our M-14's?

I wonder ... do you NOT use any Lube when you use a Condom to have sex? Bet there is some FRICTION there.

Sheeeese ................

Illiterate ehh?....Okay, whatever. But I am not the one that cannot absorb what they read. I didn't write, don't use any grease. I wrote, stop piling it in there.

Your much coveted and departed D.I. also taught people to smack the back of the op rod too, right? ...When they should have sent the rifle to the armory to have the timing fixed on it. All of them. Just because some half trained D.I. got in your head and yelled a little to teach you something, doesn't mean it was correct, or the best way to do it, only uncle sam's way.

How many things has he gotten right over the years?.... Not many. Start with the Indian treaties and uncle's record of dismal failures. Then come back and let us know which of us is illiterate. Here's a hint. Not one single treaty ever entered into with any tribe, was ever honored. "All" were broken by the U.S. GOVERNMENT..... So let the liars teach you the way to run your rifles. I barely care.

UUURah

10-11-2015, 12:06

ripper, ripper, ripper ....... we buy you books and buy you books but all you do is color the necked women.

Fortunately, or UNfortunately in your case, until you go back and EDIT your posting, here is your direct quote...

I trained at San Diego with both the M1 and the M14 and we never heard of grease or oil on them. Torn down, cleaned, then reassembled, dry

and....

A properly built M14 such as the ones coming out of the big four makers shops, would fire as intended without issues. Dry.

You are fairly new on here, ripper. Some of us didn't ride into town on a Jackass ... yesterday.

nf1e

10-11-2015, 01:20

ripper, ripper, ripper ....... we buy you books and buy you books but all you do is color the necked women.

Fortunately, or UNfortunately in your case, until you go back and EDIT your posting, here is your direct quote...

You are fairly new on here, ripper. Some of us didn't ride into town on a Jackass ... yesterday.

Excellent +1. I thought we were moving into that infamous parallel universe of fables.

Semper Fi
Art

Richard H Brown Jr

10-12-2015, 09:01

You guys seem to dis-remember that those Garands and M-14's in Army and Air Force Basic and RTD San Diego, and Parris Island were well and trueley broken in by lots and lots of trainee's firing them year after year after year in training cycles. And at least in the Army, if you weren't field training with your rifle, it was locked up in the arms room, And if you drew it, it was for the weekly cleaning, and returned ONLY when the armorer was happy that it was clean, and barely oiled and greased so he didn't get gigged for dirty weapons by the IG. And the only time your weapon went to higher level maintenance, was when the unit armorer couldn't fix *minor* problems.

RHB.

Col. Colt

10-15-2015, 10:28

I am a bit surprised that someone who would aspire to and spend the money to tool up and manufacture a respected, established product would fail to read into and fully research the already existing Knowledge Base in detail, and fully understand it's needs.

The Field Manuals, written by US Ordnance Dept/Springfield Armory for both the M1 and the M14 specify, with diagrams for those who cannot read, GREASE LUBE POINTS for both Rifles, with arrows! The M1 ran into funtioning problems in the rain, particularly in Tropical downpours. The solution was Lubriplate 130, later replaced with Plastilube (brown grease). The M14 is, obviously "just" a product improved M1.

Jim Thompson, who wrote two excellent books on owning, using and collecting the M1 Garand, found out why Grease is Necessary for the 1930's Garand design. He decided to verify or deny the myth that the Garand could not safely shoot bullet weights over 175 grs. He obtained a 500 round case of 220 grain, .30-06 BEAR LOADS, and using a good Service Grade M1, lubed per the manual with Grease, Rifle, proceeded to shoot over 460 rounds without incident or even accelerated wear. He removed the Rifle Grease and just lubed with regular gun oil. The M1 SEIZED UP in the next seven rounds, with DAMAGE, primarily to the OP Rod.

The only time you don't use Grease on either weapon, per the USGI manual, is under specific Arctic and Desert conditions, where a lighter lube is indicated - in the Manual written by the personnel who designed developed and produced the weapons. Look it up. CC

PS - I have an even earlier, different lead toothpaste tube of "M1 Grease" apparently developed during the Gas Trap Garand's early deployment. John Garand developed the M1 and worked at Springfield Armory into the 1950's. If the grease was unnecessary he probably would have said something. CC

nf1e

10-15-2015, 11:27

Thanks Col.Colt,
You are spot on.
There are some that can read all the literature in the world and not comprehend any of it. Post # 83 above is an excellent example. Thank goodness there are folks with experience that can dispel these absurdities before rumor control transmits them onto the rest of the world as facts.

Semper Fi
Art

Major Tom

10-16-2015, 04:37

This must be the longest thread in Jouster history!

da gimp

10-17-2015, 04:29

Tom, there are more than a few of us here that are/were dyed in the wool Garand/M14 lovers, not the least Former Cav & myself... this series dern sure hit very close to home with our favorite rifle the M14... don't get us wrong we own multiples of AR 15 rifles, both in Sevice Rifle set-up & the old Colt CAR-15/XM1777/M4 carbine types........ for their intended jobs they are fantastic.... But after reading & digesting this thread... I'm betting that more than a few of us has already built or intends to build an accurized AR-10 style .308 Win rifle & perhaps carbine too... using all the tricks that good smiths have learned on building a Service Rifle tuned NM type AR-15 series .223 Rem rifles......with flat tops & rails... it'll make for a helluva dependable "deer rifle" and one having more punch than our .223 Rem in social situations........

Me, I love the Winchester designed .358 Win cartridge... a dependable AR-10 in that with a 10 round mag would make a dandy dangerous game rifle for North America,... until a .30-06 length AFFORDABLE AR style rifle is made that I can build a .35 Whelan Improved or possibly even a .375 Ruger semi auto AR 10...talk about dreaming.....damnn they would be sweet. As fast as a double rifle for the second shot... with a 5 round or 10 round mag....heck my wife might not even notice that it was in the house...A fella can dream... right...?

Major Tom

10-18-2015, 06:16

I'd love to have a AR in .308, but cannot afford right now. I have garands and .223 Ar's.

da gimp

10-18-2015, 11:11

same here hand.....

Griff Murphey

10-19-2015, 06:27

I hauled my issue one out and am going to shoot it at the Texas Garand/vintage match in the modern military category. It's just like the one I had at ROTC advanced camp at Fort Sill in 1970, in fact I am carrying it in my avatar pic. In my humble opinion they wrung the last of the clunkyness out of the Garand design and came up with the best handling most accurate full power military rifle ever. It balances like a sporter... Just feels right. As a college kid in the late 60's I watched so many of those old E-6 E-8 army shooters, wrinkled necks burned brown by the sun; starched fatigues with razor creases, spit shined boots, and most importantly positions like machine rests, shoot possibles... I forget his name but the guy who wrote that book - THE GUN - on the AK and kind of derided the M-14 as a "target rifle"... I think he may be right although it may not have been THE rifle for Viet Nam (neither was the M-16 which he also condemned as "the accidental rifle"). I have hunted with mine and taken turkey and deer and shot it in 3 gun. Just a great rifle; it feels right.

Major Tom

10-19-2015, 07:11

I used to own one of the first M1As out of Devine, TX serial number in the low 0240's. I constantly had issues with rounds not fully chambering. So, I sold it for $500, a $250 profit for me at the time. Now I wish I had it back if for just a safe queen.

da gimp

10-19-2015, 07:13

it's the same here Griff... the M14-M1A just feels "right" when you're shooting one....... the recoil is negligible and that rifle positively builds a sweet spot nest on my shoulder... my cheek weld with one is instinctive & it's as if they designed the issue stocks with my measurements as the ideal........

PhillipM

10-19-2015, 07:56

I've always wanted an M14 type rifle and have shot a few of them but then I pragmatically thought about the advantages over an M1 and didn't find any worth spending $2k on a new rifle.

I considered the following points.

"White gas cut-off and expansion system". Garand rejected this system back in 30's and I've seen it mentioned he never liked it. I figure JCG knew better than I what the better system is, so I've never researched why he didn't like it. Next comes from Gus Fisher. He said it took them a long time to ever get an M14 to shoot as well as the best Garands and one the tricks they had to resort to was trying a bucket full of gas pistons until they found one the rifle liked to shoot. As a civilian, I don't have a bucket full of pistons to try. No drill bit needed for cleaning an M1.
Detachable magazine. I am of the belief that the detachable magazine was included in the design because of it's selective fire capability and in a semi-auto I don't see where a 20 round magazine is needed except maybe in some action shooting competition where they design the game around changing magazines. The M1's clip feeding is much easier while firing prone or in a fighting hole. If I need a battle rifle for social work, I'll do just what the GI's did, grab a couple of bandoliers and go.
Bedding. Due to the detachable mag there is less receiver leg contact area with the stock with the M14, therefore the M1 should hold it's bedding longer.
Has anyone noticed the M14 is LONGER than the M1?
Caliber. Since the M1 can be had in the superior .308 cartridge, that's a wash.

In the end, I concluded a 1-11 or 1-12 308 Garand will do anything I'd ever ask an M14 type rifle to do and I can achieve that with just a barrel swap instead of buying a $2k rifle.

StockDoc

10-19-2015, 10:08

Just build a better fighting hole

Rock

10-19-2015, 11:27

Detachable magazine. I am of the belief that the detachable magazine was included in the design because of it's selective fire capability and in a semi-auto I don't see where a 20 round magazine is needed except maybe in some action shooting competition where they design the game around changing magazines. The M1's clip feeding is much easier while firing prone or in a fighting hole. If I need a battle rifle for social work, I'll do just what the GI's did, grab a couple of bandoliers and go.

You are right. Most military semiauto rifles had magazines no larger than 10 rounds. The rifles with 10 round detachable magazines were normally loaded with stripper clips and the magazines were removed only when damaged or when required for maintenance. The 8 round enbloc clip of the M1 and the fixed and detachable 10 round magazines of other designs were considered adequate for the rate of fire a semiautomatic rifle could produce. My M1A is a semiauto rifle. I use a 10 round magazine and I never remove it. I load it with stripper clips. However, I prefer the enclosed magazine and the enbloc clip of the M1.

Has anyone noticed the M14 is LONGER than the M1?

That's because of the flash hider. The flash hider had to be longer than necessary because the bayonet lug is part of the flash hider. The end of the flash hider needed to be longer to reach the ring of the bayonet.

nf1e

10-20-2015, 04:41

PhillipM

10-20-2015, 05:05

During my summer camp experience in RVN in the late 60's one mag stayed in my M-14 most of the time. The 4 mags on my pistol belt never had a chance to see light other than cleaning and reloading. The mag in my rifle was topped off many times from a bandoleer with stripper clips.

Semper Fi
Art

Were you taught to do that or was it a personal choice? Are you saying the four mags on your belt were not used unless it was an emergency?

nf1e

10-20-2015, 08:02

Were you taught to do that or was it a personal choice? Are you saying the four mags on your belt were not used unless it was an emergency?

Suggested by those that had gone before me. In the Marine Corps, you learn to listen to the gents that have experience. Keep your belt mags in reserve. Aimed fire is quite effective on a man sized target. Ammo generally stays nice and clean in a bandoleer. Sand and other junk tends to infiltrate the mag pouches, at least in my experience.

Griff Murphey

10-21-2015, 07:05

Suggested by those that had gone before me. In the Marine Corps, you learn to listen to the gents that have experience. Keep your belt mags in reserve. Aimed fire is quite effective on a man sized target. Ammo generally stays nice and clean in a bandoleer. Sand and other junk tends to infiltrate the mag pouches, at least in my experience.

I'm wondering if you had the USMC single mag pouches or the Army type double mag pouches. The marine corps pouches had a top flap only, open at the sides, whereas the army type had a box-like top.

But....The army ones had the disadvantage of being like a pair of bricks when you went prone.

nf1e

10-22-2015, 02:50

We had the single pouches. As the years go by, I have developed that brick over my belt when I go prone. Nothing that the loss of 50lb wouldn't cure.

smle-man

01-09-2016, 09:36

Col. Colt

01-10-2016, 10:50

SLA Marshall is not a completely credible source. A lot of wrong conclusions came out of his work. We knew in WWII from the Kasarine Pass forward to cut back on lubrication if dust was present - it's in the manual. It explicitly mentions going to a light instrument lube - or none - in such conditons. The Aleutians campaign was another such "learning experience" in "cold weather operations" - US forces learned a lot the hard way in the first two years of fighting a global war. New weapons, new tactics - a steep learning curve we did master, but not without cost.

Learning "what works" from those who went before you simply makes sense. It amazes me the number of people who buy an M1A (which SAI sends with a copy of the GI M14 Manual) who apparently are unaware of what is already known - different environments you operate in do matter, but can be easily dealt with if you know what you should know about your rifle. If you haven't studied your personal weapon in any depth, shame on you.

What I really object to about SLA Marshall are his conclusions from his sometimes disputable observations - that lead us away from rifle skill and into full auto and the M16 as a substitute. For example, he promoted the idea that we don't need a rifle that can shoot past 300 yards because most guys don't fire their rifles using aimed fire at any but quite short ranges. That's a training problem, not a call for a shorter ranged gun. And he also said most troops don't fire at all. These are Training and morale issues - not hardware issues. My Dad (82nd Airborne, WWII Sgt.) told me WWII Airborne personnel were routinely expected to be able to hit a man out to 500 yards with their M1s - pretty much on demand, the majority of the time. They knew all about windage and elevation and range estimation. If someone taught you the proper care and feeding of a Garand actioned firearm already known in WWII (reduce/change lubes as current environmental conditons dictate) in Boot camp you would not have the reported problems after that date, would you? CC