What Is A "battle Rifle" Or "battlefield Rifle"?

[shep854]

Regarding the M27, at 1:52 in this video, there's a good discussion about the IAR between a former Marine and a retired Soldier, both infantry. If you want to hear about 4 hours of nerding out about guns, watch the whole thing. NOTE: The first 30 minutes or so is dead air and chatter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdRB8wRVnKo

Edited July 23, 2019 by shep854

[Simon Tan]

Why keep junk? To get a M14 to anything like commercial AR10-a like will cost more and it will be still be way behind the curve. Gats are consumables. Run them till they don't meet your needs then sell em off as parts kits. Torch the receiver. The rest goes out as genuine .mil surplus for fanbois. Being beat to hell is 'patina'. Need stuff? Go to Brownells or something like every other right minded person with unit credit card and authorized shopping list.

[EchoFiveMike]

What's wrong with the M14 serving in a limited role as it has been since it was phased out of general usage? Seems to get the job done as a DMR and other tasks. A lot nicer looking for ceremonial duties than an M4 too.

You can read all the times we've hashed this out, over and over and over again. Mounting optics sucks, it's fragile, the manual of arms and everything about it is different than the AR family. Basically any person with a triple digit IQ trained on the M16 series can easily figure out the AR 10/SR25 without much, if any, further training.

 

And you can sell them to aging boomers for insaner amounts of cash money and use said money to buy more useful things. Now, before all the suckers, err, boomers are dead and buried. S/F....Ken M

[Chris Werb]

What's wrong with the M14 serving in a limited role as it has been since it was phased out of general usage? Seems to get the job done as a DMR and other tasks. A lot nicer looking for ceremonial duties than an M4 too.

 

That was actually a very mild anti M14 rant by E5M standards This video is pretty good.

[Panzermann]

What's wrong with the M14 serving in a limited role as it has been since it was phased out of general usage? Seems to get the job done as a DMR and other tasks. A lot nicer looking for ceremonial duties than an M4 too.

The M14 cannot serve this purpose. It has malfunctions often, is finicky, hard to repair and maintain, inaccurate. It does not get the job done. Maybe for EOD removal, because the regular malfunctions do not matter much, when the IED does not shoot back. It is also hard to mount optics. Not only a scope, but night vision or thermals, a laser, a torch. Really it is a bad rifle, that inexplicably has a cult following. As general issue rifles the FN FAL, CETME B, G3, BM-59 and the SWD, PSL are all better choices. (Yes I know the latter are designed as a DMR)

choices. Heck, just read in a forum of M1A owners, what they have to do to get decent accuracy and consistency out of their rifles. File here, bed there, buy this overpriced tuning part, send it to an expensive gunsmith...

 

 

For ceremonial duties old M1903 and M1 rifles are enough. Still millions around. Sure for just swinging around an M14 is probably fine too.

[Chris Werb]

How is the BM59 better than the M14 (I know there are different flavours of BM59, but still....) ?

[JW Collins]

By all means I agree the AR-10 is a superior design and if you're buying new 7.62mm rifles you ought to go with one of the derivatives of it. Yet the bean-counters get their say and when there are hundreds of thousands of M14s in storage what do you expect is going to happen when someone asks for semi-automatic 7.62mm rifles?

 

Difficulties aside accurized M14s did serve that purpose as the XM21 and M21 so clearly it could be made to work. When looking at it as a general service rifle I'm a bit doubtful that there is any difference in accuracy between the M14 and the other 7.62mm NATO rifles of the day. I've never heard the FN FAL or G3 were exceptionally accurate either minus those hand-picked G3s converted for marksman purposes. Speaking of the FAL were there any conversions of that rifle for marksman work?

 

Was/is the M14 outdated? Yes. But bad? Well I imagine a lot of GIs would have loved to have the M14 back in 1944.

[GregShaw]

What are you regarding as inaccurate? The guys talking about tuning and bedding for accuracy are striving for MOA, that's a lot higher than a battle rifle requires, a stock M14 will probably shoot 3 MOA or so, which will clean an SR or SR-1 (roughly 3 MOA 10 ring, 6 MOA 9, etc...) I doubt a stock CETME, FAL, BM-59, etc are going to do any better.

 

I'm not an expert on M14, I burn a lot more ammo through my Garand's than I do my M14. I've only put 1k or so through mine (without a ftf or jam, not a claim I can make for my ARs), which is far less than E5M. I do agree with E5M, optics are a pain, and I would rather carry my A2 or A4 with 77 gr BTHP and 24 gr RL-15, Varget, H4895, etc... for shooting out to 600 yds or so. There are definitely better guns around for the DMR role, but I don't think any of its '50s contemporaries are significantly better.

Edited July 25, 2019 by GregShaw

[lastdingo]

The G3 had about 4 MOA as QC requirement, but the G3s that I encountered in service were vastly better than 4 MOA.

It's been a long time, but I suppose 2 MOA was probably normal.

[bojan]

How is the BM59 better than the M14 (I know there are different flavours of BM59, but still....) ?

It was a hell lot cheaper to introduce.

 

From our tests:

Could stand rapid fire marginally better (probably irrelevant, considering ammo load was 100 rounds).

Somewhat shorter.

Less susceptible to the stoppages due the fouling by fine dust. Both failed sand and mud tests and both passed low temperature test.

 

In the end BM-59, M14 and M59/61 (full auto capable SKS using AK mags) were ditched as "obsolete concept" compared with other competitors (AR-10, AK, vz.59, G3, FAL) and tests proceed w/o them.

[seahawk]

The G3 had about 4 MOA as QC requirement, but the G3s that I encountered in service were vastly better than 4 MOA.

It's been a long time, but I suppose 2 MOA was probably normal.

 

If you get one produced in Germany and that has not been shredded by conscripts for decades that should be easy. The A3 ZF were normal A3s supplied with the 4x optic. Mounting the optic and adjusting it was up to the user.

[EchoFiveMike]

By the time you get an M14 setup right and performing decently, you will have spent more money than if you bought an AR10 type in the first place and have a less effective and durable tool.

 

There is a good use for the M14's, other than selling to the public to recover tax dollars; equip your right wing death squads with them, then go out and purge all the idiot pogues and bureaucrats who suggested issuing them. S/F....Ken M

[Simon Tan]

Why are you arguing for crap 50s tech?

[shep854]

Why are you arguing for crap 50s tech?

Not crap, but indeed obsolescent. When it was all that was available, it's what got used.

A follow-on question would be, are the reported problems with AR-pattern 7.62 rifles really hardware, or software?

[shep854]

Make of this what you will...despite its faults, I had no difficulty hitting black at 300yd with an issue M14 back in '75, and it was the first time I shot a centerfire rifle. NOTE how close together the two 500yd hits are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYZ9mOBBpvo&t=2s

Edited July 26, 2019 by shep854

[urbanoid]

By the time you get an M14 setup right and performing decently, you will have spent more money than if you bought an AR10 type in the first place and have a less effective and durable tool.

 

There is a good use for the M14's, other than selling to the public to recover tax dollars; equip your right wing death squads with them, then go out and purge all the idiot pogues and bureaucrats who suggested issuing them. S/F....Ken M

 

Arm bureaucrats with M14s and RWDS with AR10s and let them fight. And maybe make it a reality show, the ad revenue would be YUUUUGE!

[EchoFiveMike]

 

Why are you arguing for crap 50s tech?

Not crap, but indeed obsolescent. When it was all that was available, it's what got used.

A follow-on question would be, are the reported problems with AR-pattern 7.62 rifles really hardware, or software?

 

 

Back in the 90's, when there was the wholesale replacement of M14 pattern rifles with AR15 pattern rifles in NRA competition, there was a push into AR10 type match rifles because people luv them the 7.62x51, because they're mentally stunted, insecure, servile goons who can't think for themselves. Loading the 7.62x51 with heavy 190gn+ bullets where it starts to perform well, beats the living Hell out of the M14 platform, and doesn't make the AR type very happy either without adjustable gas regulator. There were a lot of teething problems, as should be expected. However they have been overcome by this point. Also at this point, the smart thing to do is to use a 6.5 Creedmore in the AR10 platform, since it performs so much better than the 7.62x51.

 

In the bolt gun area, I currently like the 6.5 PRC, and if I wasn't so committed to the 7mm platforms I would get one. I may well sell off some hunting rifles, and get a Ruger Precision 6.5 PRC, because that's a very nice entry level setup. S/F....Ken M

[shep854]

5 hours plus of discussion, including combat vets and contractors. The consensus is that 'battle rifles' are outdated, and the US Army's recent consideration of going back to 7.62 NATO was a loser. It's a great discussion to fill in slow times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GZxKWAfwQM&t=20405s

[bojan]

5 hours plus of discussion, including combat vets and contractors. The consensus is that 'battle rifles' are outdated, and the US Army's recent consideration of going back to 7.62 NATO was a loser. It's a great discussion to fill in slow times.

 

Very slow ones, since consensus about 1st bolded bit was reached by everyone with above room temperature IQ 50+ years ago.

Edited July 26, 2019 by bojan

[shep854]

 

5 hours plus of discussion, including combat vets and contractors. The consensus is that 'battle rifles' are outdated, and the US Army's recent consideration of going back to 7.62 NATO was a loser. It's a great discussion to fill in slow times.

 

Very slow ones, since consensus about 1st bolded bit was reached by everyone with above room temperature IQ 50+ years ago.

 

Yep, letting folks know these guys aren't fanbois. The discussion moves around different subjects, with good war stories. PLUS, the old blasters are still being used in some places, so applicable information is still useful.

At least they're up front about being 'nerds' .

Edited July 26, 2019 by shep854

[Panzermann]

 

5 hours plus of discussion, including combat vets and contractors. The consensus is that 'battle rifles' are outdated, and the US Army's recent consideration of going back to 7.62 NATO was a loser. It's a great discussion to fill in slow times.

Very slow ones, since consensus about 1st bolded bit was reached by everyone with above room temperature IQ 50+ years ago.

 

More like more than a century ago. Fedorov Avtomat, the various Winchester self loaders, all the experiments inbetween the wars...

[Chris Werb]

 

5 hours plus of discussion, including combat vets and contractors. The consensus is that 'battle rifles' are outdated, and the US Army's recent consideration of going back to 7.62 NATO was a loser. It's a great discussion to fill in slow times.

 

Very slow ones, since consensus about 1st bolded bit was reached by everyone with above room temperature IQ 50+ years ago.

 

 

Unfortunately, a lot of people with sub room temperature IQs were subsequently in influential positions, and occasionally still are.

[Panzermann]

 

 

5 hours plus of discussion, including combat vets and contractors. The consensus is that 'battle rifles' are outdated, and the US Army's recent consideration of going back to 7.62 NATO was a loser. It's a great discussion to fill in slow times.

 

Very slow ones, since consensus about 1st bolded bit was reached by everyone with above room temperature IQ 50+ years ago.

 

 

Unfortunately, a lot of people with sub room temperature IQs were subsequently in influential positions, and occasionally still are.

 

 

The turkish reasoning seems to be that they are happy with their MKE made G3A7 rifles, so modernizing it is the logical step forward. Also they have generally much longer open space to cover than in Europe. But true, some fudd with muh .30 caliber knockdown power is probably involved as well.

 

In smaller numbers for special purposes the Turkish army and police have had 556 rifles in service for decades as well. MKE made HK33 or imported M16 derivatives and others.

[Dawes]

Haven't heard much about Turkey's MPT-76, although (presumably) it's seen combat use by now.

[Simon Tan]

The only issues with Westrom 'AR-10' came from using crappy M14 mags due to the AWB. Original ArmaliteAR-10 waffles from the 50s and 60s worked great after a spring replacement but they were as unobtanium as SR-25 mags during the AWB. Magpul PMAG20LR were the first affordable and reliable SR-25 pattern mags and when they came out, almost all the problems went away.

 

One of the significant developments that made .308 ARs better precision platforms was Bill Geissele's triggers. I met him when he was pretty much making them himself and we were so impressed that we contracted to take his entire production. People like him, the guys at Magpul, John Noveske etc. all transformed the AR at the sunset of AWB into the open architecture of today.