M14: America’s Worst Service Rifle - What Went Wrong? 

When firing the M14 in full auto, the first hits an enemy personnel, the second hits the enemy on the tree, the third shot misses, and the 4th hits an enemy aircraft. Edit: Can't believe how many people missed the joke

For those who may not know, when Ian starts talking about Springfield Armory around the 3 minute mark, he's talking about the US Armory and Arsenal at Springfield Mass, which was shut down in 1968. It was one of the major small arms development sites for the US military from the Revolutionary War to Vietnam. This Springfield Armory is not the same as the Illinois based Springfield Armory company that is still in business today.

I remember my grandfather telling me about being in basic training when the M14 was just introduced, and he accidentally fired it on auto whilst in prone. The sergeant was not happy until he noticed 7 of the rounds hit the target in the kill zone. My grandfather told me the sergeant said, "Since you hit so many on Target, I won't punish you as badly, and I also suggest pursuing the marksmanship ribbons."

Navy SeaBee here, combat training in Camp Pendelton, Expert marksman with a M14. Notice your selector switch, I had one as an automatic rifleman in a fire team. Nine pound rifle, hardly kicked at all and loved the rotary bolt, locked up like a bolt action. Auto fire manageable with firing three rounds at a time. Viet Nam Vet, two tours. Chu Lai and Danang.

I started Basic Training in November of 1969 at Ft. Benning (A-10-1 Sand Hill) & we were some of the last troops to train with the M-14 as the new issue M16's were going straight to Viet Nam. We had one Platoon Leader who was not particularly well-liked & he was present when we were at the range using full-auto fire. The RO's had loaded too many magazines for that day & told the Officers they were welcome to fire off the excess. If you have experience firing sustained AW fire, you'll remember the barrel becomes insanely hot with very pretty blue-black iridescent lines dancing along the barrel. Lt. R. was anxious to take up their offer but had no rifle. I had just finished firing my last magazine when he appeared & yelled "Gimme that rifle" & proceeded to yank it from my hands by the barrel. His reaction was pretty much instantaneous with a very loud scream. I've no idea how long it took his hand to heal but it was definitely one of my most rewarding days of Basic.🤣

Ah......The shoulder thing that goes up. Truly a weapon of war.

Spending New Years Day, 1971, at Marine boot camp at San Diego, we were issued the M14. At the rifle range, I gained appreciation for the rifle. I found it reliable and accurate. Much more so than I found the M16 I was issued later. What it boils down to, many find the M14 to be a fantastic rifle, while others don't. But because of my experience with the M14, the day I retired, I celebrated by buying myself a Springfield M1A and have never regretted it.

I'm a Marine sergeant. I love the M14. It's very accurate out to 500 yards and beyond. When you're holding it it feels like it's part of you. Sergeant Steve Dow USMC 1966 - 1970 Vietnam Vet

I wasn't in Vietnam, but two of my buddies who were there had M-14s for at least some of their time in country. They both loved it. They felt that it was more reliable than the M-16 (till the Army got the ammo sorted out). They also liked the heavier bullet. One guy said that if a VC was hiding behind some logs or something, you could just start chipping away at the cover, and pretty soon it was gone, and so was Charlie. The other guy just said, "When you hit somebody with it, they die." God bless them both. --Old Guy

My brother swore by the M14. He was a flight engineer during his 2 tours in Vietnam and used it in a few firefights. One plus never mentioned is it used the same ammo as the M60, and any flight crew had boxes of 7.62 ammo.

My Old Man loved the M-14. When I was growing up he gave me a book to read . Marine Sniper , all about Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam. My Dad called him one day and ended up befriending him. He was an interesting man and my brothers and I enjoyed visiting him. He also had an appreciation for the M-14. Probably more of a sentimental feeling from his days in the Marine Corps. He signed my Dads M-14 in the early to mid 90s I think it was. Happy to have met him and I thank my Dad for those times.

All I know is that when we fired the M14 during basic training at Camp Pendelton in 1967 I was able to put 10 rounds in the black (old style butts) in about 30 seconds from 200 yards, and 8 of 10 from 500 yards. I credit the training we received from our Marine instructors -- I had never fired a rifle before -- and a rifle that shoots straight.

My dad was an Army Ranger. He enlisted in the 60s and served for many years. He loved the M14. He told me it was superior to any other weapon he used.

The bottom line is they were never going to turn a 8+ pound service rifle into a BAR simply by adding a 20 round magazine and selective fire.

When I was in the navy, the M-14 was still our standard issue rifle, the other branches having long ago moved on to the M-16 platform. I personally loved the old girl. It was easy to disassemble, easy to clean, easy to shoot, easy to make accurate hits with, decently powerful, and 100% reliable with tens of thousands rounds total fired through various rifles. I just don't get all the hate, except about it being a bit heavy, but to me that forged receiver was confidence-inspiring. I even mag dumped one in full auto, and although impractical once I hit the fourth round fired in that mode, it was still pleasant to shoot even then.

The problem is that the M-14 isn't a squad support gun. That's what the M60 was for. It also isn't a PDW. It is a marksman's rifle. That's all it is good for and it is a role for which it is exceptionally well suited and is still in use in limited quantities today by special forces for this very reason. The selector switch on an M14 is pretty much useless, tactically speaking. For that matter, there are plenty of reasons to issue semi auto only weapons to most troops. It is really just a great way to waste ammo you might need later on.

I'm a manufacturing engineer and you did a really good job of describing how difficult it actually is to manufacture something complicated like a rifle.

Remember guys; while the US MoD rejected the AR10 or the FAL under the promise or building M14 from old M1 Garand and turned out not to be abble to do so... a peruvian guy named Erquiaga just did it on his own appartment creating the EM62.

Basic at Fort Ord in 1962, we all used M1's. I barely qualified with it. A year later, as an instructor in the Signal School at Fort Monmouth, I had to qualify with an M14. I had never fired anything but that M1 in Basic. I qualified Expert with the M14 at Fort Dix. A year after that, I again qualified Expert with the M14. The only two times I had ever fired the M14, I qualified Expert and I could barely hit the target with an M1. Excellent video. I have no interest in guns to be honest, but I'm a mechanical engineer and appreciate mechanisms and well-presented videos. This video satisfied both. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I was in Vietnam, Army ‘69-70. We were issued M-16A1A as our weapon. By choice many of us secured extra M-14s as a backup when at our LZ. We kept both locked and loaded. I preferred the M-14 for at camp defense. It rarely misfired and was extremely accurate, once dialed in. When on patrol, we preferred the M-16 due to its light weight. We had to be very careful not to get them too dirty. They jammed easily and without proper lubrication tended to jam. The humidity was brutal and the oils did not last near as long as stateside.

I Still love the "WHHAAAA!" sound you made when you fired that thing on full auto haha.

The only transferable machine gun that nobody actually wants to fire in full auto. Thanks for going back to the long format too.

Great video…lots I did not know. The M14 was the rifle I was issued in ROTC special forces in the early 1970s, and I loved it…still do. During the fighting in Iraq, when I was the head of Maritime Weapons Systems support, the Seal Teams had us bring back the M14 because the 5.56 rounds wouldn’t penetrate cinder block walls. We changed the stocks to Kevlar, and the teams were pretty happy with them.

My father was USMC in ‘nam 66-68, used an M14 his first tour and never had a problem with it. Was issued an M16 for his second tour. Kept it clean, but it jammed the first contact he got into with it. He bought an M3 after that and HATED the M16 until his dying day.

USAF communicator here - Viet Nam '65-'66. I remember the Grunts casting aspersions on our "plastic rifles made by Mattel". Funny how that worked out.

The fact that the M14 was the shortest career as the main military rifle shocked me because I always remembered seeing it used for Honor Guard duties for so long. They must have kept it because that polished wood looks incredible for the procedures.

I qualified "Expert" with the M-14 in the 1990's in the Navy & it still has a place in my heart. Shot one at a range a few years ago and she still has it for me. Wouldn't want to carry one in the desert, but It's a solid shooter in my experience.

I joined the Marines in 1964 and carried the M14 in Nam in 1965-1966. I loved that gun! Still do. Granted, it was a disaster on full auto (In training, they never once mentioned shooting full auto!) But it had several advantages over the M1, which I trained as well. 1. It had a 20 round magazine vs the M1's 6-7 round clip. 2. The ammo in the enclosed magazine wasn't as susceptible to dirt as a clip, and it didn't go "cling" when the clip was empty, signaling to your enemy that you were helpless. 3. It had a swivel butt support that I loved. 4. I like the sights better than the M1's, and 5. It had a flash suppressor.

19:07 Ian finds a second way to get Garand thumb.

Bm59 would want to talk to the manager

Was at the May 1967 Rifle competition in Graf. Troops from the entire European Theatre competed using the M14. Longest distance was 400m.

I loved this rifle, which I fired in the Navy. I was qualified Nuclear Power Operator from 1977-83 on USS Arkansas (CGN-41), so practice with weapons was a very rare experience for me and other interested Nukes. I was well liked by our Gunner's Mates, so I occasionally got to work out with them when I wasn't on watch down in her Plants. Great video - very informative. Thanks!

I was on my Navy ship's Security/Guard Force, early 1980s. Our armory had the M-14 rifles, semi-auto only. On a security alert, the first five team members showing up at the armory got armed and dispatched to specific locations. Fifth guy got the M-14. I alway arrived quickly as my ET office was close. I held back until I was Number Five. First two responders got the .45 Colt M1911A1 and two magazines, next two got the Rem 870 12 gauge with 12 shells in a pouch, the M-14 guy got three 20 round magazines. FIREPOWER! 😅 Normal Roving Patrol watch got the .45 pistol. We also used the M-14 with cup style grenade launcher for use in line throwing when unrepping with another ship. My ET/EW shop handled the comm line between ships. A big rubber "bullet" carried the light line over, which was then attached to the comm line.

"It has a 20 round box magazine..." wow that insertion was really smooth for an... *fade starts* ah there it is

I was an M14 full auto rifleman. In full auto with bipod and left hand holding down on the front sling and buttstock shoulder extension, you sweep it like a machine gun in small increments. Used it target shooting as well. The only drawback was only a 20 round magazine. It is an excellent rifle and never had a problem with it. Don't know any Military men that used it who said it was a bad or faulty rifle. If you haven't humped it for a couple years, shot the hell out of it, cleaned it till it was spotless, you haven't a clue about the rifle. Taking it to the range once a month or longer period means nothing.

Marine sergeant ‘65-‘69. Qualified every year for 4 years. 3 out of 4 years Expert. Third year it was raining and blowing down range heavily enough to blow/bend the targets over and I qualified Sharpshooter. At recruit qualification on day one the DI told me I would probably break the range record if I continued firing the same way. I didn’t, but this illustrates my capacity to fire the M-14 well. When I got to Vietnam I took my M-16 to a test range and fired in 3-6 round bursts. At round number 234 the projectile jammed in the barrel. That basically soured me on that weapon so I carried an M-14 and a 45 my entire 14 months in country. I’ve told anyone who will listen from then until now, give me 3 rounds at 500 yards and the third round will hit the bull every time. That was a weapon I trusted my life to. I’m pretty sure all the M-14’s I ever had were H&R. In retrospect, I would have preferred to be a sniper, because that’s something I was pretty good at. Either that or an armory tech, because I’m good at repairing mechanicals. That said, counterintelligence was my choice at the time and I don’t regret that. 😉👍

They were aware that Sturmgewehr, AK, FAL and AR10 exist but still chose THIS

I’m a Marine Corps combat veteran and when I started out we were still using the M14. I loved the M14. It was a solid, substantial , very rugged confidence inspiring weapon. When you fired the thing, it kicked into your soldier decisively. I loved it, but unlike many, I could control it well with “auto” selected. What I didn’t love about the M14 was carrying an 11 pound (fully loaded magazine and sling rifle on long patrols in 110 to 120 degree temperatures. That made me love the 9 pound (with fully loaded magazine) M16. Plus, I carried only two extra magazines with the M14, but I could carry a full bandolier or two of 5.56 ammo with no problem.

My dad told us stories of being in the Army in the mid 60's and going from the M14, to the M16 halfway through his service. What he remembers is the M14 was unbreakable, never failed, never jammed, accurate, and easy to disassemble and clean. Then the first M16s they were given, always jammed, would double feed, or fail to extract, failed to go to full bolt lock, failed instantly with slightest amount of grit/dirt, weren't accurate, and were a hassle to completely disassemble, clean and reassemble. Not something you wanted to do in your lap in the jungle. Times have changed, however some of these points will stand the test of time, as I also have a decent experience with both the M1A and various AR15 platforms, the rate of failures for similar reasons, the AR is a cute princess that can be great, but don't run it over with your truck. The M1A can be splashed with some diesel fuel occasionally, and it can't fail. Also passes the 'run over by your truck test'. 😅

Just a comment about training with the old rifle and switching to the new one. In August 1965 in USMC boot camp in San Diego we trained with the M-14, upon completion of boot camp we find ourselves at Camp Pendleton in Infantry Training Regiment with M-1s. Switch to Vietnam and once again we have the M-14. The first M-16 I ever saw was on a dead VC. 17 months later I exchange my M-14 for an M-16 and upon firing it the trigger housing group falls out. As we had no more rifles to exchange I was told by the Armorer to just not shoot it. Good advice. I rotated home shortly there after. Good times.

I used it in Taiwan's army. It rains a lot in Taiwan. The rain, mud, and dust that could go into the action and the charging handle guide rail is unbelievable. Lubricating the guide rail simply creates more goo and jams. Also, bipods should be standard on M-14s to compensate for poor ergonomics.

My dad served from 56-76. While in nam from 67-68 as ncoic for an artillery battery. he went out on patrols occasionally as a forward observer and told me he preferred the m14 as it had better suppression power and could reach out and touch someone. He said only fools fired full auto as they turned into anti aircraft guns after the first couple rounds. He did like the lighter weight of the m16 but mentioned the tendency to jam if not cleaned and lubed diligently. He earned the Purple Heart during tet getting the Forrest Gump wound when his camp was attacked in march of 68.

I trained with the M-14 in basic training at Fort Campbell in 1969. All 11-B & 11-C were introduced to the M-16 the last week. Then trained on M-16 at AIT Ft. Polk! I loved the M-14! To me it was a real rifle, easy to shoot and clean, and just plain looked good!! Carried M-16 in Vietnam, hard to clean, damaged easily, and looked like a toy with little 5.56 bullets, where the M-14 had the heavy 7.62 rounds just like M-60 machine gun! I always felt there had to be something wrong with a rifle that needed a “forward assist”??🇺🇸

These are great videos and this is one of the best. Love the history, back stories, seeing the assembly disassembly and function. Thank you for making them.

Never made sense to me why people gawk and cream their trousers over an M1 Garand but throw a shit fit over the M14, I adore both.

I think another really important thing to discuss when talking about the M-14 is Robert McNamara. He was a big fan of forcing military services to buy cheaper generalist items rather than more expensive and more capable systems. Probably the most famous example of his interference was trying to force the Navy to adopt the F-111 as an interceptor despite it being totally unsuited to the role. It seems he had a big hand in forcing the services to switch to the M-16 over the M-14.

The rifle that was meant to simplify and standardize ended up still being a rifle that comparatively needs to be fitted while you had the AR coming out that could be slapped together like a Lego set, was lighter, was simpler with less vibrating parts. The fact that the rifle was pitched as being able to re-use all this Garand tooling and then not being able to significantly folloe through on that was also a killer.

This was a phenomenal video. Great history and technical discussion about the functional aspects and the issues with the weapon's use and manufacturing problems. Good job. I remember using these in my first year in ROTC. We used it for tactical training, on the range and used weaker return springs for use on drill teams. I do remember that these were semi-automatic only but secured in the arms room safe were the "conversion kits" that could be attached for auto fire. We used these for one year only and by my sophomore year they had been replaced with the M16 on campus. After that we went back to the bolt action Springfield for drill and the M16 for tactics and range work.

Significant heat treating problems sounds like institutional memory forgot about the 1903 issues...

Thank you for this, Ian. This discussion is long overdue with histrionic bashing of the M14 design. While the gun is not a revolutionary leap forward, the essence of the design is a fundamentally good service rifle. The crux of the M14's problems was that the post-WWII era gutted the arms industry and then when the design was finally matured (quite late) by Springfield Armory and the Technical Data Package was ready to license out, none of these bidders were serious about building the rifles correctly. The tale of this rifle's problems is less a tale about the aspects of the rifle itself as it is a tale about the immense failure in factory production of guns and lax quality inspection standards after a severe contraction of the arms industry post-WWII. If it wasn't the M14, it was actually the FAL that would have been doomed to be ruined by Winchester's horrible quality control and lapses in good production management.

Great video!! And, not too long 😉As always, full of good information shared concisely and interestingly. Thanks!!

Fantastic Job!! Thank You for Sharing This information!!

During my 2nd tour of Iraq. My unit was issued some M14s. Seems the Army recognized that most units didn't have designated marksman rifles to deal with more long ranged engagements or counter sniper operations. So the M14s were the answer. Got to shoot it in Kuwait. They were in excellent condition and obviously came out of Army weapons storage. To my knowledge my units soldiers who were assigned these never had to use them in combat. It was a better to have and never use than not have and need it situation I suppose. I was just happy I had a brand new M4 carbine with new optics. I was a happy camper weapon wise.

BTW, the next time someone blubbers about "military grade weapons" remember that when M14 rifles had trouble meeting the Extreme Spread standard, the Army changed the acceptance standard to our old friend the *Figure of Merit* which was the Extreme Horizontal Groups Size added to the Extreme Vertical Group Size and then divided by two to take the average. Remember, if a military weapon can't meet a standard the usual procedure is to lower that standard.

I had an H&R M 14 in Queensland Australia in the mid early to mid-1980s. In those times, we did not need a licence, and it was legal to own semi-automatic firearms. I used it for pig hunting with good quality ammunition. I loved using it with little recoil compared to L1A1 fal I used in the Australian army. It had the selector switch removed, and the rod spot welded. Not a difficult issue to overcome if you so desired. My was stolen in 1985 sadly.

I work in a machine shop. Any individual component that is manufactured has its own bluepring, but then there are also several other papers, each dedicated to a specific step in the process that details what that station needs to do. If a part gets caser cut, then deburred, then machined, then bent in a press brake, etc, thats a paper for each. So each part has a stack of papers kept in a traveler that follows the part around the shop until it is assembled/combined with other parts, or QC'd and shipped.

I recall Eugene Stoner talking in that interview from way back the M14s main purpose was to feed the Armory at Springfield. The brass were extremely reluctant of turning over their small arms development to the private sector. The Garand while a great platform in WWII, was soon outclassed by the assault weapons being developed. The Springfield Armory served its purpose, which was to mass produce small arms with interchangable parts. It took a government backed effort to do it and great advancement in production techniques were made. The Armory was shuttered in the late 1960s. But we are now basically seeing the same thing with space launches. It took a government backed effort to make that happen. Today, private industry is taking over lower earrh orbit launches and NASA is now focusing on deep space launches.

I think it is important to clarify that the M14 may have been the shortest serving PRIMARY infantry rifle in US history, but it is among the longest serving rifles in US history. The follow on development of the XM-21, M-21, M-14EBR, and M-25 to fill a gap in capability kept many of these guns in service for quite a long time. I'm pretty sure the US Navy is still using them as line throwers for at sea replenishment, and there are still EBR floating around the armories of various units in the US. I'm a fan of the platform in spite of the weaknesses of the design. There is something about it which just feels right in the hands and the recoil impulse is really lovely. My M1A Loaded will put 175gr SMK into 1.5MOA 10 round groups all day and spits out M80 ball at about 4MOA. Plenty accurate. With modern cleaning techniques, it holds that accuracy between cleaning, too

Very comprehensive explanation - never heard anything about it - only fired 100 rounds with M16 in Air Force Basic in 1973 .

Was just looking for a video about the m14, and what luck, you just uploaded this! Thanks Ian.

I have to say, the M 14 is absolutely not a forgotten weapon, but this is one of the most fascinating videos from this channel I have seen in a long time… And that is an incredibly high bar to clear. Thank you very much Ian, I'm probably going to rewatch this several times this week.

Went through Army Basic at Fort Benning in spring of 1969 using M14 . Having never fired any weapon other than a Daisy BB gun , I shot Expert and loved the M14 . A year later in VietNam I was oriented with the M16 and was surprised at the light weight .

Super photography and excellent explaining of what does what Thank you

What a great video -- first I've watched in the series and I will watch more. Came in the Army in '69 at USMA. We trained on the M14 and the weapon is still used for ceremonial duties (USMA, the Old Guard -- 3rd Infantry Regiment in DC for the Tomb and funerals/parades). I loved the weapon. Qualified on it, but I imagine many of the issues with the ammunition and the weapons remaining in service were ironed out. All of ours had been modified to semi-auto only. Firing pins were removed after summer training so we could use them during the academic year (stored in an unlocked rack in your room -- a room without a lock on the door). The butt plate that comes up was to go over your shoulder (obviously) but the little plate on the buttstock underneath that plate would open and the cleaning kit was in the stock. I also agree with other commenters -- the 7.62 NATO round (.308) will penetrate better and will not be deflected by leaves and small twigs in the jungle or a European forest. I think part of the decision to go with the M16 was lighter, and the individual soldier/Marine could carry more ammunition within the same weight. As for full auto, poor decision in terms of facilitating small unit fire discipline with permitting full auto. That's why we've gone to the selective fire of the three round burst with the M4. I also carried the M3A1 during ODS. Another great weapon for armored crews -- they were still authorized for recovery crews (M88) and I was able to "adopt" one for use from my Bradley hatch. Very interesting description of the small initial contract quantities. I worked operational testing after my uniformed career - we now call that Low Rate Initial Production and that is a big decision point for procurement. Before that point, the contractor/vendor must demonstrate production capability and quality control on the actual line they will use for Full Rate Production decision. No "custom" manufacturing steps or "work arounds".

I cracked up when Ian managed to Garand Thumb himself in a completely new way when demonstrating the trigger 😅

I shot with a match 14 in Division matches when I was in the Marines. I placed in the bronze bracket and I had no complaints with my rifle. Consistently hit the bull at 600 yards with iron sights.

Great video. Logical, accurate and truthful.

I grew up in a middle class suburb of a large East Coast city. In 1969 I joined the Army because I was in danger of being drafted.During BCT at Fort Knox we qualified on both the M-14 and the M-16. Although I had never even touched a firearm before arriving at BCT I qualified on the M-14 just 2 points below Expert. I didn't do nearly as well with the M-16. I never served anywhere near combat (I was a lot luckier than many guys of my era) so I can't judge the combat capabilities of either weapon. But I wonder if my experience with the M-14 was common.

Watching that dissasembly really makes me appreciate even more now how simple/smart Stoner's design is. "The definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple." -Albert Einstein

I'm torn. I have always loved the M14. I love the Cold War 1950s esthetics. I also like the IDEA of it being a continuation of the Garand and replacing all of the other small arms with one platform. It is one of my favorite guns to shoot at the range. I also admit that it was a bad service rifle and that it failed and should have never been built.

I want to thank you. I was in ROTC from 1966 to 1970. We had M-1s for drill while we are at school and I qualified sharpshooter. When I went to ROTC summer camp in 1969 I worked hard on being able to qualify on the M-14. I ended up getting Marksman by just one point. I was worried I wouldn't qualify and I was devasted for years to come. When I got to the 82nd as a second lieutenant I was issued an M-16 and went back to qualifying Sharpshooter and Expert on the .45 pistol.. You relieved me of a bad memory. It was that damn M-14 rifle when I almost didn't qualify at all. I wonder how many guys didn't qualify at all who should have. I will offer you this. Think about FM 22-5 (drill and ceremonies). I think they adopted the M-14 so they wouldn't have to change the Manual.

Hi, Ian, I had the pleasure of using the M-14's during the 1960's while I was on active duty, but but none of the M-14's I was issued had the selector lever on them. I knew about the selector lever, but I was never able to secure one for my self. I have hated the M-16's with a passion as I had empty brass get caught in my shirt at least once every time I had to qualify with the M-16, which I likened to the Mattell "Shootin' Shell" guns I would see in all the toy stores. Thanks for bring this delightful weapon back to my memory.

The M14 should be taken as an example of the old engineering adage, anything designed to do everything, does nothing well.

Quick correction: the M14 has the shortest service life as the main service rifle in the US military, but it is actually the longest serving rifle in US military history. The M14 persists in military service to this day as the M14 EBR, for use as a designated marksman’s rifle.

I really enjoy the in depth history videos, keep up the good work!

First time seeing you and your work. Truly enjoyed the education!

I was talking with my uncle a while back about military guns and stuff. He was in the Army during Vietnam and I was in the Marines during Desert Storm. He told me he loved the M14 and would really like to own one. Whereas the M16A2 I was issued could just stay in the Marines inventory as far as I was concerned. I have a deeper preference for wood stocks and blued metal, parkerized is okay though.

First rifle I ever fired was the M-14 when I was drafted in 1966. I qualified expert without a problem but hated carrying it on those 20 mile marches. After basic we got the M-16 which I also qualified expert but I still thought the M-14 that I had in basic was better at long range than the M-16.

I qualified Expert with the M-14 during Army Basic Training at Ft. Polk in February 1965. My Drill Sergeant was disappointed when I told him I had enlisted for Military Intelligence and would not be going infantry. I loved that rifle because the recoil was less than the black power .58 1863 Tower percussion cap rifle I had learned to shoot as a teenage Civil War reenactor. When my unit of the First Infantry Division deployed from Ft. Riley, Kansas to Vietnam in September 1965 we carried the M-14. Within about 6 months we transitioned to the M-16. I remember the 'grunts' hated that plastic "Mattel" rifle. Over the years I've had a few AR-15 rifles but I've never learned the M-16 Manual of Arms.

First of all, great video. Love it. Second of all, to all of the commenters posting about their experiences with M-14, thank you so much for your service and for sharing your stories.

I'd love to see a video on the "armory concept" you mentioned at 31:50 as being missing after the shuttering of Springfield! Thanks for another great video

What a complete shame it is! 1.38 million produced with none being made available to the average civilian. Damn the registry. The American people's tax dollars paid for these rifles and they are destroyed. Complete waste...

Great work Ian ... Well done ....

As the owner of an M1A i found this very informative! Thank you so much!

I own a TRW 1963 build genuine M14 here in Holland. Semi auto only (by an installed M1 Garand trigger). The M14's here are imported to the Netherlands from Vietnam in the 1970's. Today, a original M14 cost approximately half of a SA M1A. I used it for target shooting. 600 meters prone service rifle. My M14 was completely accurized by NM standards. Took me years to get it really accurate. I love the M14, it's a beautiful rifle. But it is not accurate or reliable enough. It can't handle simple range dust. And it holds accuracy only if you don't take it apart (for maintenance). At best a 2 /2,5 MOA rifle. I use my AR15 now for match shooting. It can run circles around a M14. But the M14 will always have a soft spot in my heart:-)😊

What fasinates me about the "four guns down to one gun" idea is that it would have been a lot more achievable if they had gone to an intermediate caliber. It still wasn't going to actually work, but it would have been reasonable to replace the m1 carbine, The m1 garand, and the grease gun with something sort of approximating a Ruger Mini 30. Which would have made a very American AK I suppose. Edit: I understand the history of *why* this didn't happen. I was thinking more about what such a gun might look like IF those historical prejudices against anything other than 7.62x51 could have been overcome somehow.

Thank you,I always wondered what happened to the M 14. Failures do happen in all things.Thanks again

Great video Ian!! The M14/M1A is my favorite rifle I own. I did a bunch of research one year for the gun store I worked in and discovered we had a transferable FA M14, one of the Taiwanese guns, and one of the very first Springfield M1As. And then we sold them.

Imagine a properly manufactured "M14" chambered in 270 British allowing it to be slightly shorter, lighter and more manageable in full auto mode. Outfitted with synthetic furniture then coming into use, we probably never would've heard of Eugene Stoner.

My brother served in the Army National Guard in the late 60s with an M-14. He told me it was a great platform, but blamed inaccuracy on being issued worn out equipment. I missed out on buying a marksman (sniper?) version with the optic and carry bag for $1100.00 about 30 years ago.

Learned a lot from this, you're a great teacher and historian Ian!

This video clears up a lot of things that I've heard over the years about the M-14, thank you. I've owned a Ruger Mini-14 for decades & love it's simple rugged operation.

At Ft. Knox, in 1968 my basic training was only M 14 with two mornings on the firing range. We had no training on the AR-16. We learned how to disassemble the M14 and clean it. It was so similar to the M1 which I was previously acquainted with. I do not recall that the M-14's that we were issued had any select fire mechanism. A half a year later I was deployed to Vietnam. Before leaving for Vietnam, we had a short experience with the AR-16. We were handed an AR and asked to spray a target about 25 feet in front of us, full auto. That was it. When I arrived in Vietnam in 1969, our company was provided with M-14's

dude, i follow about a dozen other yt creators and you BY FAR the smoothest, cleanest (lack of extraneous bs) presenter out there. i LOVE your vids and your clearly explained thoughts.

I trained on the M-14 in 1966 and earned the Expert Medal. My Company in the States at the Granite City Army Engineers Depot had the M-14. One of my section NCOs, a former member of the US Army Marksmanship Team in Europe, taught us how to control the M-14 on full auto and saw I got a lightweight clip-on bipod when we were in Vietnam. Using it from prone or a foxhole with the strap anchored by my left arm and that tripod, I could keep 3 and 4-shot bursts on a C-ration box (size of most men's torso or center mass region) at 50 yards, in the jungle or nighttime that was pretty far for seeing to aim. You could all let out the sling, put it crossways over your left shoulder (right hand like me) so it hung at waist level, lay the rifle on its side, hold it down with the left hand and fire on full auto this allowed the rifle's recoil to track the fire in an arc, useful for closeup against advancing troops or area fire at longer range. I loved my M14 so much that over the years I have owned the M1A semiautomatic version of it, the Mini-14., = the same but scaled down to 5.56 and the Mini-30, the same thing chambered for the 7.62x39 Russian (AK-47 round).. All were/are good rifles/carbines and accurate.

Very interesting video Ian. Well done.

As an infantryman serving in the 3rd US Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) in Arlington Virginia for two years in the late 1980s, I was a rare example of an active duty combat arms soldier who carried an M14 as my standard issued weapon decades after it was mostly phased out. We needed the M14 for our ceremonial function (conducting funerals in Arlington National Cemetery); but we also used them as our standard infantry weapon in the field (we were all fully qualified 11B infantry with a real-world military mission to defend the DC area as part of the Military District of Washington). I say this to explain that as a result of carrying this weapon in the field (with swapped-in nylon stock) and firing it countless times on the range and during exercises, my conclusion was that it was a SUPERLATIVE battle rifle. In basic training at Ft. Benning, we were issued and fired the M16-A2, which was new at the time. While the recoil was lighter, it occasionally jammed and the 5.56 cartridge didn't inspire as much confidence at the 7.62 beast we put through the M14. With its open Garand bolt, the M14 never once jammed on me or my friends, even when wet and muddy. It was incredibly accurate even with its fantastic iron sights, and the recoil was no problem once you got used to it. There was a simple elegance and brute power about the weapon that made it feel like a real "battle buddy". The M16 did not convey that same sense of security.

I often tell folks, I must have been very lucky with the 11 M-14s I have fired. One was an M-14 E2, or M-15 version. (More controllable in that configuration than a BAR.)

Very interesting, for sure! Thanks for sharing!

The last time I had to qualify with the M-14 during my naval career (1986-2006) was 2000, I also had to qualify with the M-16, 12 Ga (Mossberg A-500) and the M-9 Berreta. I loved everything about the M-14 except for the recoil which wasn't as bad as the recoil from my M-5/AR-10 (.308) is. I also got to shoot the M3A1 grease gun during Army basic training and fell in love with it.