When tradition clouds your judgement


#1

Chris Bartocci specks to his despise towards the M14 rifle.
https://www.full30.com/video/f5dbf7ff463420ac60ebebd331467afd


#2

That was a real good video. I understand his bitterness.

The US military, and virtually all militaries, have a history of making poor acquisition and selection choices.


#3

Didnt the m14 only get selected because the FAL wasnt made in America.


#4

I hear this about the stoner design yet alot of professional soldiers/marines and security contractors prefer the platform.


#5

A couple of things that I took away from this article:
The historical knowledge of military arms of the narrator.
Very impressive.
The contradiction of the term “military intellegence.”
Also known as an oxymoron with emphasis on the last syllable.
Didn’t the powers that be in the American Civil War decide against the lever action rifle and the Spencer in favor of the muzzle loader for the same reasons described in this video?
In a more perfect world, wouldn’t the sacrifice of our trusting soldiers be considered traitorous?


#6

Bingo!


#7

There’s always going to be separation issues between the people deciding what is best for the guys on the ground to carry, and what the guys on the ground actually want to carry. This sounds like the exact problem that happened; someone in an office saying what the grunt wants. Small Arms Solutions did a great job in his video, and while I do have a soft-spot for the M14, it’s a shame how the process turned out for the guys that had to grind through the bureaucracy. I wish we could go back to producing our equipment back in the States again though; there are just as many great home grown rifles that could replace the FNs or HKs we use. I know Daniel Defense had a SOCOM contract, and now Geisselle too with their URGI upper. Even Sig is at least in the States.


#8

FN and HK opened factories here, didnt they?


#9

Most of the bigger companies have to avoid import laws
Those rifles and handguns built here have no need to be 922r compliant


#10

Familiar with the “We Were Soldiers” movie starring Mel Gibson?

The real Colonel who lead those soldiers credited the win on the M16. The weight, volume of fire, magazine capacity, and amount of ammo they could carry made a difference. He didn’t think they woulda won if they had M14s.


#11

Although worth mentioning - the round gets as much credit as the rifle itself.


#12

Some people had issues back in the ARs beginning during NAM. Bad ammo , no chrome lining and lack of training are mostly to blame. My great uncle was a NAM vet and never spoke badly about the M16 platform though.


#13

All new radical firearm changes go through problems.

Although - many of the early AR problems were because the military didn’t follow Stoner’s recommendations.


#14

I havnt read a whole bunch into it but they seemed to be more concerned with cutting corners and rushing it into the field.


#15

The rifle was rushed because the solders were out gunned 90% of the time
The m14 in full auto is not easy to control muzzle climb
No training with m16 and the shoulders were told that it didn’t need to be cleaned
Hence horrible Ftf and failure to fire
Just what I was told by Charlie cutshaw who worked for janes for 30 years before he passed


#16

Makes sense, I heard Stoner designed the AR platform around .308. Not sure how 5.56 came about.