Why I Despise the M14... 

Just a thought for all those who post "I knew/was a vietnam vet that hated to lose my M14 to a M16". What you train with is what you prefer. Read some books- troops who had trapdoor springfields hated the Krag rifle originally, till they had experience with it. Troops with 1903 springfields didnt want to trade in their trusty target rifles for fancy new M1s at first. Troops complain, always.

My father was in Vietnam on the beaches of Bien Hoa during the Tet Offensive in 68. He was discharged in fall of 69, I was born in 71. Yrs later I asked him about the war when I was 15. He pulled out five massive slide carousels and reels and reels of 8mm film of the pictures and movies he made there. One picture is this young 21 yr old punk (him) outside his sand bunker opening up a wood crate and grabbing his brand new M-16. He said he absolutely loved that rifle and it was superior to the M-14 in every way. He also said he felt he was the luckiest man alive to come home from that terrible war. Then again yrs later I purchased an AR15 when I was 21. I remember showing to my father and almost cried when he tore it apart on the kitchen table like he had done it a thousand times. LOL. He put it back together loved the improvements that had been made went out and shot it off his back deck and said that was enough of that. My father says to this day he does not understand why the comments section on Yahoo News, when an article comes up about the M4 so many people comment on how the current military should go back to the M-14. He just shakes his head. Love you Dad.

I am just an old 11B grunt, not an expert on firearms. I spent the winter of 1967-68 in the 2nd Inf Div on the Korean DMZ pulling guard in a foxhole every night. Our bunker/trenches were maybe 20-30 meters from the fence. For some reason the army put sapling fences in front of our positions and barbed wire everywhere else. The sapling fence provided nice cover for North Koreans to fire on our positions. We had semi-automatic M-14s. A few of the M-14 automatics with a bi-pod. Our basic load was five 20 round magazines and a couple of frags. We stuffed our mags in the pockets of the flak jacket. I was in a couple of firefights on the DMZ. I think they did not give us more ordnance because we would have shot up the fence. :-) Not liking the cold weather and freezing every night, I 1049ed to Vietnam and spent the rest of 1968 there. I was assigned to the 1st Cav and was issued a new M-16. Basic and infantry AIT was all M-14. The M16 I got was the first time I had touched one. We went to the range to zero our weapon. Then sat down and figured out how to field strip and clean them and I was on my way to I Corps. Our basic load was something like twenty 20 round magazines plus more rounds in clips, lots of frags, and a claymore. I was really shocked at how little ammo we had on the Korean DMZ! My impression? The M-14 was very heavy. Luckily I did not have to do patrols on the DMZ in Korea, so it did not matter much. When I picked up the M-16 I smiled because it was so light. Of course the ammo was light too. I was asst M-60 gunner, so I had to carry belts of ammo for the M-60 as well. So we carried a lot of weight on patrols. The M-16 was automatic which we used most of the time firing short bursts. Most firefights were close range in dense foliage. Recon by fire was common. The M-16 was great. I kept it clean to avoid jams. We put the plastic silverware wrapper from C-rations over the muzzle. I love the AR-15 platform because of the modular design and being easily modified. Today I am amazed at the knowledge of our troops about weapons. Even though we had M-16s in Vietnam, I look back on that experience and think about how primitive the conditions were. I think we were closer to fighting with spears and clubs. I wonder if people see Vietnam videos and think that we went back to barracks, showers and mess halls at the end of the day. We slept on the ground every day of my tour. Our "rear"was guarding some LZ in a bunker for a few days "rest", but still pulling ambushes and LPs. That's all I got! Thanks.

I was with First Recon in Chu Lai and used the M 14 until January of 1967 when we were given the M 16. On my first patrol with the M 16 it jammed, I presume because of the ball powder being used early on. I went back to using my old M 14 until I returned to the states in July. I had no problems with the M 14. It was heavier and had more recoil but was always reliable.

Thank you for making this video. I've never been a fan of the M14 as a service rifle. It's a fun civilian rifle, but as a military rifle it was outdated the day it was adopted. It was a huge mistake adopting it and, as you mention, put us way behind our allies and our enemies. So many people refuse to accept this reality. Given your stature in the community, I hope folks listen to what you say here as it's absolutely true.

I was issued my M14 rifle in March 1962. It was brand new marked Springfield Armory, I qualified Expert with it. Needless to say, it did the job.

“I don’t think you guys want to be here for two hours”. Actually, yes, yes I do want to listen to your in depth analysis for two hours....

'69, 11B4P, 173rd Airborne Brigade 👍😎👍Loved my M16 throughout my tour in RVN. Hardly used the auto mode, the M60 handled that! We just carried the 7.62 belts 🙂 My only complaint about the M16 was that it didn't protect me from Agent Orange! I'm 74yrs old, with 100% VA service connected disability heart disease connected to that chemical . Life goes on!

I was trained on the M14 50 years ago in Army Basic. I hated it. It was heavy, always dirty and hard to clean. Of course I used the M16 in VN (25th Inf). I'm 71 now and own a M1A. I love it because I don't crawl in the mud any more and only carry it from my car to the shooting bench.

I love the M14 as an Infantry man in Afghanistan, I carried one in scout platoon with an optic for the role of precise fires. I used the rifle for as a somewhat precision rifle that could acquire multiple targets, it was amazing in that support role in scout squad. I am however glad I didn't have to carry it as a main battle rifle in a jungle, it was a good weapon in the wrong philosophy of use.

Many of us in the UK have always been rather miffed that the .280 British was rejected; I often wonder with the passing of time just how much R&D there would have been in the cartridge since its 1947 introduction. We can only dream what Eugene Stoner could have done with the .280 and the AR10 at the time.

When i was much younger and the glocks were getting really popular i was one of the many people saying I don't want no plastic pistol. I was against it. Not only was it plastic but it didn't have a hammer. One day a friend of mine had one and let me shoot it. After I shot it I took it apart to see how it worked and how it was made. I realized how simple the striker fired system was and now all my pistols are striker fired plastic.

The title should be "Why I Despise Bureaucrats...". Well-made informative content. Thank you!

My uncle Larry served in Vietnam early(ish), around 65 or so. He said he loved th M14 because it's what he was trained with & initially issued. He said he was then issued the early M16 & hated it, because it was "unreliable" & "not accurate". I don't think he ever realized the issues he experienced were due to the early non-chromed parts & incorrect ammo. My father served 1970-71 & loved the M16. Another Vietnam vet who taught me guitar served around 1969 and also loved the M16.

Imagine a Garand in the late 30s with a detachable magazine chambered in quasi intermediate 276 pederson. Would’ve been light years beyond what anyone else had.

I wanna say that you have posted the most heart felt honest post I have ever seen. I'm a retired SGM over 23yrs in the Army 16 with Special Operations. I loved the post when people talk so passionately about our soldiers gives me hope! Thank you!

Great video. "Despise" is a strong word, but I think you should have applied it more to the military acquisition process and not the rifle. I carried an M14 in Vietnam and loved it. However, I was assigned to a US Navy Special Boat Unit. As such, two of the major drawbacks of the M14 were eliminated. 1) The weight of the rifle and 2) the weight of the ammo. When not in use, my M14 was in a rack on the boat sitting next to cans of ammo. When compared to the M16, The larger , heavier round of the M14 was better able to better "punch" through jungle vegetation and light weight barriers, like wooden boats or make shift "bunkers". I can never remember using the M14 in "full auto" mode when engaging the enemy, for the obvious reasons you have outlined in your video. Many times, such engagements were at "stand-off" ranges of 200 yards or more. Of course, we had 2 M60 machine mounted on our boat. The M60s were very effective at these ranges also, but many times. all that was required to suppress the enemy was a few well placed shots from the M14. Now, if given a choice between the M14 or the FN-FAL......No contest! The FN-FAL would be the choice. However, I didn't have that option. The bottom line? My M14 served me well for more than 3 years and never let me down. I should point out, that prior to joining the Navy, I was an avid deer hunter and my cartridge of choice was the .308. Again, I great video. Thanks!

I was trained on the M14 in 1964 at Fort Knox. I believed all the hype the army put out in the training films and thought it was a great weapon. But my young brain noted some discrepancies. For some reason the army tried to convince me that the M14 was light. Now I'm a big guy but that was not a light weapon. Secondly, the constantly talked about select fire and full auto. The only time I saw M14's with select fire were in training films. When we asked why there weren't any select fire M14s available to the troops we were told that we would waste ammo(?) Now I was a pretty good shot with the M14 and was amazed when I hit targets at 400 yards with open sights. But I wondered how that would apply to jungle warfare. Also in my hands the rifle was a good club and bayonet base. But I still wondered why it had to be so big. I thought the M1 carbine would make a much better jungle weapon. But I was told the M1 carbine was obsolete and lacked hitting power. I guess the army knew better. But honestly I could carry two carbines and ammo just as easily as 1 M14. But they knew better. But what really bothered me was that the M14 would overheat after three mags and would often double feed. But being a good soldier I obeyed orders. They also told us that the new M16 was junk. I thought it looked cool, was easier to deploy and more ammo could be carried. It also had that selector lever for full auto. But the M14 was effective at 1000 yards they said. Oh well. I was scheduled to go to VietNam in 1968 but due to a twist of fate I never saw combat and ended up training troops on the 105 Howitzer at Ft Sill. I have often wondered why the M14 had such a short service life. Although I see that it is sometimes used to this day by special forces. Maybe someone will get a 700 yard (klics) klll in Afghanistan. But your video confirms my suspicions especially due to tradition and my observation regarding discrepancies has been confirmed.

Military tradition belongs in West Point, not Aberdeen

Funny thing is, a lot of AR10s are now getting into units in the role of DMR (Designated Marksman Rifle). We're finding that the penetrating power of the 7.62 is welcome in units when they DO need some accurate long range firepower or the stopping power needed at checkpoints and gates for stopping vehicles (through engine blocks and windshields). The 5.56 is still doing fine, but the USA isn't done with the 7.62 as a rifle cartridge yet.

I saw a guy on the Military Channel refer to the M-14 in full auto mode as having the 1st shot on the mark, the second shot a little high and anything after that was anti aircraft fire referring to the rate of climb.

Tradition kept my butt alive, the M 14 never failed, it could blow through Vegetation with little deflect. Maybe not perfect but my preference at the time. 67 and 68

Tens of thousands of American soldiers training for Vietnam lost half their hearing due to the M-14 and the military not issuing ear plugs,thousands have never been compensated for their loss.

I don't agree that the M-14 sucks, but I think this was a very in-depth, complete, intelligent, and pretty straight forward video. Well done!

Grandpa had one in Vietnam when he was a combat engineer said he loved it.

I fired an M-14 just once, on a range at Ft. Knox.when I was a tank crewman. I had also once shot an M-1 back in the days of huge cloth targets and the "pit" where you took turns hoisting up those targets and then spotting for the shooters. An M-14 was, near as I could tell, just an M-1 with a box magazine. Ho-hum. In Germany I was given an M-3 submchine gun (the infamous "grease gun") because that was a weapon you could keep inside a tank. I was less than thrilled; the effective range of the M-3 was six inches longer if you pulled out the wire stock. In Vietnam - and now an OCS grad assigned to the artilery. I had an M-16, an M-79 grenade launcher, and a .45 pistol. I looked pretty bad-ass but mostly I carried all that (and a radio) in hopes that at least one would work.

I was a U.S. Marine who served in Vietnam from mid 1965 thru December 1966. Though I originally trained on the M1 Garland, I carried the M-14 my whole time while in Vietnam except for special operations. It saved my life and caused MANY casualties to the VC and NVA enemy. I loved my M-14. My children are glad I carried the M-14 because they are alive too.

Personally I don't think the M14 is a terrible weapon, just wasn't the right rifle for the environment it was in.

I was a volunteer in the (old) South African Army. We were issued 7.62 NATO FN FALs and the receivers were all pinned so that the selector's full auto position was blocked. The author is absolutely correct about the difficulty of controlling a 7.62 MBR on full auto. Even 7.62 general purpose machine-guns are (somewhat) difficult to accurately control if fired from the shoulder, though their (roughly) 25 pound weight makes it much easier than a (roughly) ten pound Main Battle Rifle on full auto. I own a semi-auto FAL and have owned a semi-auto M14 variant. I believe the M14 is a fine rifle, but still give the nod to the FAL. It's all about the correct tool for a given situation.

The army didn't adopt the henry repeating rifle for similar reasons in the Civil War.

I loved my M14 so much that I went out and bought a rebuilt one @30 yrs ago.

The reactionary nature of the US Army Ordnance Corps is legendary. They were famous for disregarding emerging technologies as far back as the US civil war.

I must have grown up in another universe. My M-14,in Basic and in Vietnam was not only accurate and hard hitting, but it was great for a vertical butt-stroke and handled a bayonet extremely well. Based on this video, you all will want to throw your M-14’s away, I would be happy to have them.

On the Second of July, 1967, Alpha and Bravo companies of the First Battalion, Ninth Marines were on patrol just a few hundred meters south of the D.M.Z. Bravo blundered into a well set ambush at the marketplace; soon, Alpha, too, was in the thick of it. The enemy consisted of a regiment of the North Vietnamese Army supported by artillery, heavy mortars, rockets, anti-aircraft guns, and surface-to-air missiles. Charlie and Delta Companies were rushed to the field in support, but the outcome had been decided. The Marines were overwhelmingly outnumbered. But, worse than that, they were equipped with Colt M-16 rifles. Their M-14 rifles, which had proven so effective and reliable, were stored in warehouses somewhere in the rear. The M-16s would fire once or twice -- maybe more -- then jam. The extractor would rip the rim off the casing. Then the only way to clear the chamber and resume firing was to lock open the bolt, run a cleaning rod down the barrel, and knock the casing loose. Soon, it would jam again. This was the rifle supplied to her troops by the richest nation on earth. The enemy was not so encumbered. They carried rifles which were designed in the Soviet Union and manufactured in one of the poorest nations on earth -- the so-called People’s Republic of China. Their rifles fired. Fired every time. They ran amongst the Marines, firing at will. Sixty-four men in Bravo were killed that afternoon. Altogether, the Battalion lost around a hundred of the Nation’s finest men. The next morning, we bagged them like groceries. We consigned their bodies to their families and commended their souls to God. May He be as merciful as they were courageous. Today, people are still debating the issue: Was it the fault of the ammo? The fault of the rifle? Neither. It was the fault of the politicians and contractors and generals. People in high places knew the rifles and ammo wouldn’t work together. The military didn’t want to buy the rifle when Armalite was manufacturing it. But when Colt was licensed as the manufacturer, they suddenly discovered it was a marvelous example of Yankee ingenuity. Sgt. Brown told them it was garbage. Col. Hackworth told them it was garbage. And every real Grunt knew it was garbage. It was unsuited for combat. There was no congressional investigation. No contractor was ever fined for supplying defective materiel. No one uncovered the bribes paid to government officials. No one went to jail. And the mothers of dead Marines were never told that their sons went into combat unarmed. To all outward appearances, those Marines died of gunshot and fragmentation wounds. But a closer examination reveals that they were first stabbed in the back by their countrymen. The politicians, contractors, and generals have retired to comfortable estates now. Their ranks have been filled by their clones -- greedy invertebrates every one. They should hope that God is more forgiving than I. Brave men should never be commanded by cowards. First Lieutenant Harvey G. Wysong 0100308 United States Marine Corps Reserve First Battalion, Ninth Marines “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” --Thos. Jefferson

Very interesting information, I served in the Australian army, we were issued with the FAL known as the SLR (self-loading Rifle) but I had a Harrington and Richards M14 for my own private hunting use back in the early 80tys. The SLR we were issued was semi-automatic only and is heavier than the M14. I found that 3 Rnd bursts with the M14 were very controllable and accurate I was extremely surprised by that. The SLR kicks like a mule in comparison, the M14 for me was very mild. I only weigh 130 pounds, the SLR 10lb 15oz with 20 rd mag. Our troops used the semi-auto SLR in Vietnam and loved the fact that when you hit someone they stayed hit add to that if they were hiding behind a tree no worries straight through one dead noggie. Australian term for enemy Vietnamese but the general derogatory term for Asian combatants. The M14 was shipped to Australia with no selector switch and spot welded so as not to be fully auto, a bit of elbow grease a grinder and Bobs your uncle M14 Assault rifle. I was using Australian surplus military ammunition it was all match grade stuff but standard issue in our forces.

I carried an M-14 in Afghanistan in 2009. Excellent combat rifle, real stopping power and fine balance. At 10,000 feet in the Hindu Kush, my M-14 was very effective. No jamming issues, no stoppages.

I carried an M14 in an EBR Chassis with a fixed 10x Leupold for a few months during my second tour in Iraq with 1/502 IN. 101st Airborne, in and around the Mahmudiyah area during 2005 and 2006. I had shot an M1 Garand in high school for NRA Highpower and had grown an affinity for the M14, so I jumped at the chance to carry one. Huge mistake. In the chassis with the scope, a PEQ, a Surefire, and the Harris bipod we were issued it was BRUTAL to hump. The thing weighed more than a SAW with the paratrooper kit on it (short barrel, collapsible stock, ELCAN). It certainly was nothing special accuracy wise. I mistakenly figured that this rifle would be at least close to the M1 I shot in competition. Man was I wrong. We were issued M118, but these rifles could not reliably hit a man sized target past about 800 meters. It was an all-around fail. On a side note, a couple years after I got out I was at a large gunshow in Denver walking around, looking for ways to burn money. I overheard a conversation between two folks that went something like "You know that our boys aren't even using the M4 anymore overseas? That's right, they're all getting issued M14s! Those mouse guns just aren't putting down the tangos. They need 7.62." I had a good laugh. As I have come to expect, this was an outstanding video.

Militaries have long been attempting to replace every weapon in their arsenal with one do-it-all magic stick. It never works. The gear must adapt to the mission. Where the m14 fell flat in close quarters jungle or urban fighting it excels in long range mountainous areas (afghanistan).

Sounds like you should rename this why I despise The US Ordinance Corp

This was really insightful. Thank you.

With the army it's not tradition. It's some general's ego.

When you put all of those problems that have been treated individually into one lump, it makes a really sad story.

Very educational on many levels. Thank you for your research and insight.

Great info, thanks for being so knowledgeable and articulate.

My father loved his m14 far more than the m16a1 he was issued, But I suppose he is a product of his time.

The M1 was also originally supposed to be chambered in .276 Pederson. A cartridge with very similar ballistics as .280 British however right before it entered production they forced John Garand to rechamber the M1 for 30-06.

I trained with the M-14 at PI then used the rifle in Vietnam. Great weapon always reliable never jammed! I still shoot the the Springfield M-14 today and wouldn’t trade it for anything!

"Tradition can be a bad thing." Preach it, brother. The reason the M14 was a .308 bore is because the M1892 was a .308 bore. Personally I think a .257 or .264 would have been ideal and probably would have made the second change to .224 unnecessary.

The m14 was built for a war that had already been fought. I still want one, but tactically speaking it was a decade obsolete by the time US troops got the first batch.

Excellent video. I get very angry every time I hear the story about how the Army sabotaged the introduction of the M-16 so it would fail… A lot of soldiers died needlessly because of that. My question is this, was anyone ever held to account for that? I would think some people should’ve gone to jail.

Love these videos. You are a wealth of knowledge, thank you for sharing.

Very well-made informative content. Thank you!

The M14 is a good rifle. But it's not suitable as a basic infantry rifle. It's better suited as a DMR. That said, the shady politics of the Army Ordnance Corps is absolutely sickening.

Chris,this is a classic dissertation on the inadequate M14 and the corruption of U.S Ordinance Corp. Well done that man!

Great analysis. I really enjoyed this video and just as good is reading through the first hand accounts in the comments section. Really phenomenal stuff. Love reading the experiences of older vets.

I trained with the M-14 in 66. The M-14 was designed to face off against the Soviets in Europe. Thankfully, it never had to be used for that purpose. It was a great platform, and is still used by the American military to this day. I don't care what this guy has to say about it. The M 16 is also a great weapon' but that was not the case when it was first issued. I didn't get my hands on one until I deployed to the Americal Div. in 1968. It had seen several revisions to it by that time , and I was issued an M16A1 version. Also a great rifle. I'm Glad I didn't have to lug the M-14 all over I Corps, and i am equally glad I didn't have to square off with the commies in Europe with the M-16. The right tool for the right job. That's what we're talking about here. The M-14 isn't the Swiss Army Knife of firearms. No weapon is. This website is voicing an opinion, and so am I. You know what they say about opinions!

I loved my M-14.. accurate and powerful. I own an M1A now.

I carried an M14 on my 3rd Iraq deployment and I loved it more than my M4. It was a beast! But to each is own. Great video as always.

Great video! Enjoyed all the info and knowledge you have about this platform, which I've come to love. Thanks for all your work.

The best video I have ever seen on that subject. Greetings from the Czech republic, Central Europe!

The M-14 was caught in the flux between WW2 and cold war tech. I love the M-14 for long range or open field work but not for close up work. I admit that the FN is better in general because it is a truly more modern design. The real issue is that no one rifle can be all things, the M-16 and M-4 carbine have occasionally been found lacking in some battles in the middle east due to the long ranges and heavy construction of buildings but heavy calibers were a bad idea in the jungles of Vietnam. Pick your poison. I for one think the military needs to adapt its systems to the environment and quit looking for the all-in-one gun.

Grunt: The M1 and BAR have too much recoil. The BAR doesn't have big enough magazines to be a firesupport weapon. Arms designer: So you are telling me we should fuse them into one weapon? Grunt: ....

Carried an M14 in Vietnam, I own 2 m 14s. Weapon was most effective if used properly. It's a great weapon.

Excellent Vid, well thought out reasoned argument. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of damage one incompetent can do. "Strudel or Studeler the Ordinance Noodle"

This reminds me of Marine Raiders being issued "updated" 1911's (Picatinny rail etc.) in 2012 and immediately after that, complaints soared (by the people who were actually using them). In the end, the Raiders got issued Glock 19's.

As is typical, we fielded the weapon best suited for our last military campaign. Korea had terrain that was suitable for the M14. My Father was issued a M1 Carbine, a firearm that would have been useful in the streets of Europe but horrible in the open hillsides of Korea.

Amazing video!! Learned so much!!

I loved my M-16 when I was in the Army. How disappointed I was when being discharged I couldn't keep it. It is a very underrated weapon.

Thank you for the history lesson regarding the M14.

10:40 The reason they used the 8 round clip over the box mag was 100% due to logistics. Clips were extremely lightweight, cheap, and easy to make in comparison to 20 rd magazines, and during a time where everything was rationed, the use of an 8 rd clip was far more beneficial and pragmatic in the grand scheme of things. Great video, but the idea that, the US used the 8 rd clip because we had tradition, and didn't want our soldiers wasting ammunition isn't true.

Another great and in-depth video. Keep it up 👍

Awesome video. Really appreciate your knowledge and story telling abilities 🍻

just got back from the range with my son today...he brought his mauser...i brought my m1a...after a couple hours of shooting my son looked at me and sai "dad...the thing i like about the m1a is you just cant miss with it"...granted we were only shooting out to 400 yards with iron sights...non the less...the m1a is a fine and accurate firearm...

Thanks for the pull-no-punches video, Chris! In Basic Training 1966 I trained with the M14 and it was issued to me my first 18 months. Then in 1968 I used both rifles for a while in Vietnam. After Nam, 1969 in Korea, again I had to lug around the M14. Like you I greatly preferred the M16 though I think the M14 is beautiful. Perfect rifle for parades and honor guard but go to war with the M16/M4! Ironically, I qualified three times in three years with the M14 while M16 qualification fell through the cracks, I never qualified with it. Didn't matter, what an easy rifle to shoot accurately. My brother went into Basic the summer of 1969 and by then training was with the M16A1. Today I have three Garand action rifles, the M1A Scout, M1 Carbine and Mini-14. And Stoner rifles, the AR-10A and a few AR-15s. That pretty much covers all the (rifle) bases.

Thank you for sharing some history with us! Great topic and very interesting.

The Virgin M14 vs The Chad BM59

Oh yes, I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS.

I strongly suspect if the FAL or G3 had been adopted, they would have been in service at least into the 1980s.

Outstanding video. The knowledge you have is astounding. I learn more from you than any history teacher ever.

This is one of the best gun videos I’ve ever watched. 👏👏👏💯🎖

loved my m-14 in the Corps

On the bright side, because of how flawed M14 was, it accelerated the development of M16 - and US ended up with a low-impulse round (5.56) a decade before Soviets did the same upgrade to their AK. If it adopted FAL, I bet it would have stuck with that until 70s or even 80s, like many European countries did.

In a perfect scenario, we would have been using the FAL in .280 british

I carried the M14 from 1964 to 1970. I loved the power and the heft of that man killer!

very interesting and concise story; once again illustrating the "good old boy system" is not the way to be efficient and effective.

Back in the day, I was issued an M-14 during basic training. First time I went to "order arms," my synthetic rifle stock and that of many of my fellow soldiers, cracked. We were then issued wooden stocks. On the rifle range, my M-14 jammed once or twice with every two or three magazines, despite my cleaning my weapon meticulously every day. On the plus side, I shot "expert" and had no trouble knocking down silhouette targets at 400 meters with the M-14.

Very interesting video. Thanks for putting it together.

BTW I wish I had an M14 in Kandahar. Some units were actually being issued M14's in Afghanistan. We were constantly outranged . Engaging at over 500 yards. The Taliban knew the 5.56 round did not have enough steam past 400 meters. Nothing wrong with 7.62×51./308. Yes the M14 is a heavy pig, yes 7.62×51 drops. But if you know the drop rate you can easily compensate. AR's are an Amazing rifle if the mags are tight and the rifle is clean. And you do not have to engage beyond 400 meters. BUT,....I am not a fan of 5.56 at all! I think we smashed about 1/3 of the mags issued so they wouldn't be re issued.

I went to Parris Island in August of 1964 and was issued an M-14. For the next 4 years, at every duty station I was assigned to, I was issued the M-14. Every year I had to qualify at the rifle range. When stationed with the 2nd Tank Battalion at Camp LeJeune, I set a new high score record at the rifle range. Lots of guys hated the peep sight, but I loved it. The M-14 just felt right to me. I never held an M-16...not to this day. I did not make it to Vietnam, so I'll never know how well the M-14 performed in close combat.. I don't think the M-14 was too heavy. I did many 10 mile forced marches with all my gear, and never had problems keeping up. So personally the M-14 is still my weapon of choice. It is a beautiful and accurate rifle.

Your audience shows your quality. More vets than air softers.

You earned a sub. Great video and background info! Also no emotionally attached mambo jambo just pure history and facts.

The British army used the M15/16 in the Confrontation with Indonesia before the US forces inVietnam. The ammunition supplied was that specified by its designer Stoner. The weapon was a success and later used by certain troops in the Aden withdrawal. John

I respect your opinion sir, I genuinely thought this was an insightful video thank you

There was a little know cartridge called the .276 Pederson that was developed in the mid to late 20"s and was designed to replace the 30-06 cartridge for use in the M1 Garand. It was rejected, however, by then Army Chief of Staff General MacArthur. With a bullet weight of 140 or so grains and a velocity of approximately 2400 fps, it definitely would have been a step in the right direction for an intermediate cartridge. The slight down side was that the case was about the same length as the 7.62x51 or 308 Win.

Great analysis! Liked and subbed.

Fantastic Video - I learned a lot of great history . Thanks much for your detailed discussion.

Summer of 1970, USAF basic...for small arms qualification they gave us worn out, first model M-16's...no chrome liner, no forward assist, 3 prong flash suppressor...rattled like a can of bolts and nuts...having grown up hunting with .22rimfire, I fell in love with the M-16, no more recoil than a .22magnum rimfire and very accurate...a very practical rifle for 300meters or less and with the new propellant (not that cheap charcoal that gums up the action) was a joy to shoot...Mr. Stoner did his homework on this rifle...

One thing you have to realize is when they ordered the M-14 they were gearing up for the cold war and a lage conventional war in Europe not Vietnam. That had a lot to do with their thinking.

Lots of great information thank you for making this

Friend of mine was in the South African Defence Force in the 1970s up on the border with Angola and actually in Angola. He carried what we know here as the R1 rifle which is actually the FAL. He told me that the terrorist insurgents they fought used to try to take cover behind trees sometimes when other cover was sparse in the usual savannah landscape. The R1 would happily shoot right through the tree and kill them. They never seemed to learn the lesson.