this really broke my bubble with the M14 even MORE!

[Rock]

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]

Proper rifle maintenance was stressed in this WW2 training film.

[13Echo]

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

[Art]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[UUURah]

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]

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]

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