Has Ian Been Huffing Burnt Lacquer Cartridges?

How can he say the M-14 is the worst?

?si=HLtxrblp1zrMZIrH

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How can he say the M-14 is the worst?
    Because it was?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The original M-16 issued in Vietnam was worse.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Incorrect. The m16 was ubiquitously preferred by the troops because it was lighter, they could carry more ammo, and it was more controllable when they were spraying into the trees. All the early issues of the m16 were solved by a powder change and the issue of cleaning kits. Even when the m16 was having issues in the beginning, it was leagues better than the m14

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I have actually met a Vietnam veteran who was part of the early days of the m16
          He mentioned getting issued a m14 at first and then when we got to the m16
          He sort of got quiet and gave a look like
          That pos got some my friends kills
          Given the fact it was the early days I am pretty sure it was true

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Vets, especially Vietnam vets in current year, are moronic and should not be trusted.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Anons, especially anons in current year, are moronic and should not be trusted.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is also true and it doesn't invalidate the truth of

                Vets, especially Vietnam vets in current year, are moronic and should not be trusted.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Correct. People in general are moronic. There’s a reason why lawyers hate eyewitnesses.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is a made up story

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            this is a brown ESL, you don't live in America and you don't own a gun or have any experience with guns

            This is a made up story

            entirely

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You made-up story would be more believable if you weren't (and very obviously so) some dumb ESL moron

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          A problem was it couldn't shoot through the trees.

          Didn't have to walk to far into the brush, bamboo, or trees to have decent cover.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is never an issue that's brought up in any of the sources. Bamboo& brush isn't cover, it's concealment. VC is behind concealment or cover? Lob a grenade behind it. GI's loved grenades in Vietnam

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Bamboo& brush isn't cover, it's concealment

              It is when your opponent doesn't have an adequate round.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Again, this was never ever brough up as an issue during the time. You'll note that squads had 7.62 M60's with them as well

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nope, the soldiers who were trial-issued them loved them.

        After the trial reports but before manufacture for general issue, the ordinance board made various non-approved changes to the rifle and ammo which they had been explicitly warned not to make, and then told soldiers not to clean the new guns.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the soldiers who were trial-issued them loved them
          Nope, the Colt representatives that lied through their fricking teeth in the M14 v M16 comparison documents loved them

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Early 55gr .223 would fragment wonderfully at engagement ranges in Vietnam.
            That would be more lethal than an icepicking .308.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Black person 55gr in 1/12 twist and devastating at 3000 fps

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            uh what I thought 223 was made to wound?!!

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Getting your lung turned into pulp and choking to death on your own blood technically counts as a wound.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Colt representatives that lied through their fricking teeth
            Source?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The XM16 in Air Force combat trials got rave reviews. If you read shooting mags from the mid '60s it's portrayed as a wonder weapon with the 5.56 causing grotesque wounds guys weren't used to seeing. That's documented fact. How bad the issues with the M16 in widespread Army use was seems to be a little clouded by history but they definitely fricked up the powder/barrel/cleaning angle and gave it a bad reputation.

        I have actually met a Vietnam veteran who was part of the early days of the m16
        He mentioned getting issued a m14 at first and then when we got to the m16
        He sort of got quiet and gave a look like
        That pos got some my friends kills
        Given the fact it was the early days I am pretty sure it was true

        I had a neighbor who was in the Marines when they went from M14 to M16. Guess that would have been later than the Army? He didn't hate the M16 but he thought the M14 was better, although he didn't like how heavy it and its ammo was in comparison.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >If you read shooting mags from the mid '60s it's portrayed as a wonder weapon with the 5.56 causing grotesque wounds guys weren't used to seeing.

          Yeah, but that's just bullshit propaganda rolled out to counter the fudd insistence on a battle rifle. We have plenty of data on lethality and .30-06 and 7.62mm are, no surprise, far more lethal. They also have hands down better ballistics. The question is if they are worth the weight or recoil.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The original M-16 issued in Vietnam
        What, the one issued to "advisors," Air Cav and Airforce base guards that got glowing reviews

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because it is. It's basically a target rifle that set the US back by almost two decades compared to the Soviets.

        Because of the subpar chrome lining of the barrels, shitty powder, and lack of cleaning kits. The ordinance board literally tried to sabotage the rifle. Yet was all but universally loved by GIs who were being outgunned by AKs and RPDs. Almost all engagements in Vietnam were less than 100 yards.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >basically a target rifle that
          couldn't even maintain 6moa groups lmao. Excellent sights, horrible rifle

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Almost all engagements in Vietnam were less than 100 yards

          Looking at the rice paddies in Vietnam on Google Earth, I find that hard to believe.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            During the war most of the engagements happened in northern vietnam, which is far more mountainous and was at the time far more forested.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Those famous rice paddy engagements you see in movies and games all the time were almost entirely VC ambushes in RVN territory. Check out the terrain further north near Laos where the real fighting with regular NVA forces was taking place.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >moron thinks there was only one M16 issued during Nam and that the issues were rifle related and not powder or dogshit mags

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Those were almost entirely due to bean counter problems and an issue with recycling old powder and not due to the guns own problems. Ammo changed and suddenly the gun was not only ubiquitous but beloved, crazy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Noob or bait? You decide.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      /thread

      >Can you point a worse service rifle?
      You could say SA80 but it stayed in service longer and much of the work done "fixing" it was just rebuilding it to the spec's set in the initial design. So yeah, its probably one of the worst. INSAS would be the objective worst if you're including non-NATO nations.

      as for non-US NATO service rifles, the CETME L might be a contender.

      The original M-16 issued in Vietnam was worse.

      moronic. The M16 had no problems when using the powder specified for the design and issued with cleaning kits (who woulda thunk)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nope, the soldiers who were trial-issued them loved them.

        After the trial reports but before manufacture for general issue, the ordinance board made various non-approved changes to the rifle and ammo which they had been explicitly warned not to make, and then told soldiers not to clean the new guns.

        Autism speaks.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Autism builds everything you use. Being correct is a good thing, actually.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But you aren't correct.
            The initial rifle that was really fielded in Vietnam, was garbage.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You've been exposed as wrong and now you're backpedalling to "uhm ackshully that's not what i said it wasn't my exact point" just stop, kid. Post a gun or git out

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Shut up, stupid!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Actually posts gun
                I can respect that, still wrong tho

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The initial-initial rifle performed really well. It's when they rolled it out as standard issue they started having problems.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I am not about to argue over the meaning of the word "fielded", but if you're using it to jargon-out the trial rifles then whatever, I wasn't.

              The decision to adopt the rifle was made after SUCCESSFUL trials in Vietnam.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Is that why the majority of Vietnam vets in the comment section seem to be disagreeing with Ian?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Don't know why I fricking bothered because why wouldn't you tell one more lie, but yep, you did.

                The majority of Vietnam vets in the comments are not disagreeing with Ian, or even "seeming" to. Some are saying they liked firing it, some of those saying they liked firing it also included that they loved switching to the M-16.

                Ian has, again, stirred zero real controversy with his opinion which everyone knows is right.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Oh, you're moronic. Shame.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What's wrong with the center l?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          NTA and I can't speak for the rifle itself as I don't own one (and none that aren't kit builds exist in the US) but the mags vary so fricking wildly. I have a bunch of the 30rd mags when Apex sold them by the can and bought a few 12 (lol) round mags. The followers have huge scratches, almost gouges, in them. IIRC there's a big gouge across the back of the follower where the hump is from bolts smacking them. And out of all the many many AR15 mags I've played with, the CETME L 12rd mag is the only one that's ever not fit in my AR and had a couple misfeeds. I think the mags are the biggest issue with them but I've heard of a lot of feeding/cycling issues in general. They look cool as frick though.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The CETME Ls used by the Spanish military had basically everything wrong with them. Shitty QC, shitty magazines that led to Spanish soldiers stealing/trading American mags, shitty springs, bad steel quality, you name it. All this added together made rifles that were almost as unreliable and non-functional as the L85.
          On top of this, for some reason, instead of just downsizing the CETME C like HK did with the HK33, they completely remodeled the receiver and changed the controls, getting rid of the charging handle catch and adding an awkward bolt catch design that requires you to break your grip to use.
          The US made Marcolmar rifles are much better and are fairly reliable, accurate, and well built. Much like the Ameli, it was an ok design by CETME that wasn't given a fair chance due to Spain's underdeveloped industry.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Krag was worse.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe it’s based on how many actually had to use it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you could say the m-14 was the least successful service rifle adopted for its time, but saying it's objectively the worst service rifle ever is moronic. would you really prefer an m1903 over an m14?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Look at the OP moron

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          what are you sperging out about?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > would you really prefer an m1903 over an m14?
        If all my contemporaries had contemporary rifles? I.e. Mausers, Carcanos, SMLEs, and so on? Sure.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >but saying it's objectively the worst service rifle ever is moronic
        not what's being said, at least know what the thread's about before posting

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >M14: America's worst service rifle
          that's exactly what's being said you moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            holy shit you have to some underaged moron
            >OMG STOP SAYING IT WAS THE WORST SERVICE RIFLE EVER
            >No one's saying that, they're saying it was the worst American service rifle
            >THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S BEING SAID
            off yourself, noguns

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >they're saying it was the worst American service rifle
              it isn't, though. unless you're unironically stating it's less effective than a 1903 springfield or a krag-jorgensen, which is an entirely moronic take.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Holy Christ you are dense, dude. Like the other anon said, saying a battle rifle from the 1950s is more capable than a turn-of-the-century bolt-action isn't saying anything at all. If someone says the Brewster Buffalo was one of the worst American fighters, saying that it was more capable than the DH-4 isn't a valid statement. I mean holy shit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >erm when I said it worst I didn't mean it was the worst
                like I said in my first post, moron, you can say it was an unsuccessful design, just don't say it was the absolute worst american service rifle ever. even a shitty self loading rifle is better than a bog standard bolt action rifle

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I legitimately don't think I've encountered your level of cognitive deficiency online that often. You're like a specimen I want to study and observe.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you could say the m14 was worse than its contemporaries. you could also say the m1903 was better for it's time than the m14 was. neither of those things make the m14 worse than an m1903 though. it's still a superior rifle. all I'm asking is for you to use the correct wording.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                By your logic the Charleville or Springfield 1795 are far and away the worst US service rifles by virtue of being fricking muskets, but you know goddamn well that's not the point of the discussion. That, or you're NOT being willfully obtuse and are actually a raging autist incapable of contextualizing information like a normal human being.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yes I am saying they are the worst service rifles because they are the least effective. If you want to talk about their relative effectiveness within the context of their original time period, you need to directly add that to your statement, you can't just make a broad statement without any qualifiers that something is the worst if it actually isn't the worst of its category.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >If you want to talk about their relative effectiveness within the context of their original time period, you need to directly add that to your statement
                fricking laffin right now you just can't buy being exposed to actual autism like this

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                > talk about their relative effectiveness within the context of their original time period, you need to directly add that to your statement
                People who aren't mentally crippled and unable to pick up contextual clues/subtext/nuance don't need this explained. I feel sorry for you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                just because you can understand the unstated implication of the original statement doesn't mean that statement wasn't objectively false. I even specifically added the argument you thought I missed in my original post

                you could say the m-14 was the least successful service rifle adopted for its time, but saying it's objectively the worst service rifle ever is moronic. would you really prefer an m1903 over an m14?

                , I was just stating that the actual statement was incorrect.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Anon I'm sorry you have crippling autism on top of being a noguns, but it's gotten just sad at this point.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this one isn't even an argument, you're just resorting to personal attacks. how am I supposed to keep the dialogue going when you give me such lackluster responses?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're probably pretending to be this level of stupid, but I'll humor you. In the context of the video this thread is made about, the M-14 is presented as "the worst American service rifle." What you're failing to grasp is that this goes beyond it's on-paper mechanical capabilities, but also in regards to what it was designed to do, how it was meant to be made and other factors outside of the hard factors you've zeroed in on. You argue the 1903 Springfield is "worse" than the M-14, intentionally or unintentionally glossing over the additional factors that are being discussed. Yes, the 1903 isn't as capable as the M-14, but it was a perfectly solid rifle for its era, filled its intended role precisely, and had a long service life spanning two world wars and beyond. The M-14, meanwhile, failed in just about every way in regards to what it was supposed to do, was replaced after less than a decade, and more than likely contributed to the closing of Springfield Armory. Do you see now how this could be argued as being the "worst" American service rifle?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you see now how this could be argued as being the "worst" American service rifle?
                That depends. I could see it being called the "worst american service rifle for its time" but I could not see it being called "the worst american service rifle"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This was already addressed, but honestly I know you're just wanting to get a rise out of people, so I'll leave you to that.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this isn't even ironic though, we just have very different understandings of the word "worst"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No.
                You’re just moronic

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                so what is it, am I moronic, autistic, or just a bait poster? you can't seem to make up your mind

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Orange.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >If you want to talk about their relative effectiveness within the context of their original time period, you need to directly add that to your statement, you can't just make a broad statement without any qualifiers that something is the worst if it actually isn't the worst of its category.
                You actually don't need to do that. That's what separates normal people from the autismos such as yourself.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you could say the m14 was worse than its contemporaries. you could also say the m1903 was better for it's time than the m14 was. neither of those things make the m14 worse than an m1903 though. it's still a superior rifle. all I'm asking is for you to use the correct wording.

                >erm when I said it worst I didn't mean it was the worst
                like I said in my first post, moron, you can say it was an unsuccessful design, just don't say it was the absolute worst american service rifle ever. even a shitty self loading rifle is better than a bog standard bolt action rifle

                >they're saying it was the worst American service rifle
                it isn't, though. unless you're unironically stating it's less effective than a 1903 springfield or a krag-jorgensen, which is an entirely moronic take.

                you could say the m-14 was the least successful service rifle adopted for its time, but saying it's objectively the worst service rifle ever is moronic. would you really prefer an m1903 over an m14?

                This is Grade A (you) farming right here. It takes talent to come across like a sped that cannot be reasoned with, their blatant and almost gleeful misunderstanding or basic conversational queues and etiquette providing an endless font of exasperation and invitation to mockery.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this homie is legit too stupid to put things into context lmfao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What a moronic comparison.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you could say the m-14 was the least successful service rifle adopted for its time, but saying it's objectively the worst service rifle ever is moronic. would you really prefer an m1903 over an m14?

                Based fricking moron. Rock on man.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >would you really prefer an m1903 over an m14?
        If I want a sub-6 MOA rifle, absolutely. I'm honestly not sure what point you're even trying to make here. One rifle is from the turn of the century and the other was contemporaneous with the FAL, G3, AR-10, and not to mention the AKM if we expand beyond the scope of battle rifles. Sitting here trying to explain that your M14 does "x" better than a bolt action rifle from WW1 really does not do much to improve its image.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >would you really prefer an m1903 over an m14?
        You have such a lack of nuance it's embarrassing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Advanced levels of moronation

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How
    Did you watch the video? Can you point a worse service rifle?
    >inb4 krag
    We won that war

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Can you point a worse service rifle?
      You could say SA80 but it stayed in service longer and much of the work done "fixing" it was just rebuilding it to the spec's set in the initial design. So yeah, its probably one of the worst. INSAS would be the objective worst if you're including non-NATO nations.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Right but the video specifically pertains to American service rifles

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You missed a teeny tiny detail. Just an itsy bitsy one. You missed the “AMERICA” part you fricking moron.

          I'm just responding to a post not the OP. Chill.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The post clearly pertained to the OP. American service rifles. Dipshit

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Im sorry you're upset.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You don't seem sorry

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You missed a teeny tiny detail. Just an itsy bitsy one. You missed the “AMERICA” part you fricking moron.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You missed a teeny tiny detail. Just an itsy bitsy one. You missed the “AMERICA” part you fricking moron.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Can you point a worse service rifle?
      The XM7?
      Not now maybe, but it soon will be.
      It is 100% a piece of shit that Sig basically paid people to approve. It, like that P320 based pistol and their fricking idiotic MCXs, are fricking jokes. The only difference is solider actually fire their service rifles so the XM7 will be found out quicker.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The XM7?
        Fitting, considering it's basically a modern M-14
        >heavy
        >huge amount of recoil
        >expensive
        >doesn't even meet program requirements and only won due to internal politics
        The only good thing is if it follows the M-14s life cycle, it'll get quickly replaced by something actually good. Here's hoping they revisit the GD gun.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >another 'pls get mad at ian's m14 video' thread

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The last one was fun since it just turned into shitting on cucksadra

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I wouldn't be surprised if that homosexual makes these threads. I wish I was in the room with them and Brownells when he spilled his spaghetti and everyone realized they needed to be thousands of miles from him.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I think most people could sus that out by being in the same room as him. Spaghetti or no

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm glad he did that video. Every discussion about the M14 on the internet is boomers (WE WOULDA WON IN NAM IF WE KEPT IT) vs zoomers (OMG ITS NOT 1MOA) and they both have extreme opinions that don't reflect reality. It's a fine rifle that failed because of a combo of timing and manufacturing issues. US should have kept using the Garand for a couple more years and put more effort into AR10/AR15.

    What I've always been interested in is how the M14's a combo of pre-war technology. Like if someone at Ordnance had put the pieces together in the late '30s you would have had a working M14 going into WW2 instead of the Garand.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It jogs the noggin, the design isn't hard. Hell, the m14 would work fine with a long stroke piston even.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That video was worth doing, even if some of his conclusions were incorrect. Yeah, there were production issues, but there were also design issues. When I refer to the M14 as the best rifle of WWII, I'm joking, but I'm not. It was an improved M1 that was obsolete as a service rifle before it had even entered service, and not all of the improvements were in the correct areas.

      The XM16 in Air Force combat trials got rave reviews. If you read shooting mags from the mid '60s it's portrayed as a wonder weapon with the 5.56 causing grotesque wounds guys weren't used to seeing. That's documented fact. How bad the issues with the M16 in widespread Army use was seems to be a little clouded by history but they definitely fricked up the powder/barrel/cleaning angle and gave it a bad reputation.

      [...]
      I had a neighbor who was in the Marines when they went from M14 to M16. Guess that would have been later than the Army? He didn't hate the M16 but he thought the M14 was better, although he didn't like how heavy it and its ammo was in comparison.

      The original M16 shot a lighter bullet, through a barrel with a slower twist rate, that was longer and produced a higher velocity than what's normal today. Then we changed basically everything that affected external ballistics and people became confused that it didn't work as well. A bit of a head scratcher for a midwit, but it should be obvious in retrospect.

      Anyone remember St. Kyle disarming his man a few years ago? And that was with a faster rifling twist and slower velocity than the original. That sort of shit was what the SF advisors in the early 60's were seeing, which is one of the reasons why they loved it. You simply didn't get that level of effectiveness from a weapon that light during that era.

      Troops b***hed. Actual issues aside, this is what soldiers do when rifles are replaced. The old timers complained when they had to turn their Springfields in for Krags because they didn't hit as hard. The next batch of old timers b***hed when they had to turn their Krags in for Springfields because the bolts weren't as smooth and they missed the rotary magazines. The Springfield guys b***hed about turning their Garands in because the sights sucked and they didn't work in the sand. The M14 guys cried when their Garands went away because they couldn't take a low prone with the magazine in the way. Such is the way of things.

      [...]
      IIRC those mags are fricking solid too. Just feel stupid rigid. The US really should've looked at them.
      t. played with a mag from one a couple days ago

      Weight aside, the M14 magazines were one of the things that they got right. They're fricking indestructable.

      >t. armoreranon
      >no, i'm not going to post the whole list of what's wrong with the m14 in a practical sense again

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        too bad the magazine well on the M14 is horrendous.

        it's not rock&lock, it's insert, angle, wedge, correct and good enough

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It was an improved M1
        They even fricked that up.
        >Half of the machine shops in America turned out M1s during the war and all of the tooling is still around and this thing is basically going to just be a magazine-fed M1 so this should be easy enough
        >Well actually we're gonna change this bit and this bit and this bit and-
        >*Springfield Armory goes broke*

        That this 6 MOA piece of shit boondoggle killed Springfield Armory is enough reason for me to spit on it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The problem was the post-war slump after WW2 fricked the arms industry really bad.
          All those machinists and skilled industrial workers were let go because companies weren't getting orders for 100k rifles a month anymore. And they all disappeared into a thousand other industries and companies.
          There is no reason that Winchester and H&R should have had so much trouble with the M14. Yes, it turned out you couldn't use out of the box Garand tooling to make it. That was a big mistake. But the gun is not fundamentally that complicated.
          It was entirely on a lack of hired or contracted talent in those companies, combined with excessive cost cutting.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It jogs the noggin, the design isn't hard. Hell, the m14 would work fine with a long stroke piston even.

      I consider it a telling example of how biases and assumptions can negatively impact development and design
      I don't know how true this is, but someone once told me that the Garand went with an en bloc clip because some higher up decided that a detachable box magazine would be too complicated for your average GI to use in combat - an assumption with some logic behind since Americans are notoriously stupid and combat tends to degrade motor skills somewhat but an erroneous assumption nontheless

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        On top of doctrinal bias (the grunt can't lose the magazine if it's part of the gun and you don't have to produce millions of magazines to go along with your service weapon, you can't drop an internal magazine in the mud/sand/dirt/etc.), clipazines and weapons that used them were not nearly as proven or reliable as they are now and they weren't really common anywhere until WWII - and it bears mentioning that despite everything else, protruding magazines DO have disadvantages. Magazine wells for full-sized rifles hadn't really been figured out very well and when the M1 was designed and adopted intermediate cartridges didn't even exist. What changed that more than anything else was the M1 carbine, as everyone who saw it went "what the frick, this thing is awesome" and immediately copied its homework to some degree. Even the US did this, as they were experimenting with converting M1s to feed from BAR magazines while the war was still going on.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    for when it was used it was objectively pretty fricking bad

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Since this is today's designated Ian thread, he recently did a podcast where he said he was permanently banned from Desert Brutality and all Inrange projects because his relationship with Karl ended. Mentioning that since last thread people were saying they were still best bros.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What podcast?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Some Czech thing they did last month. Ian gets interviewed a lot on podcasts where he talks about himself more than on the big YT videos. Don't care about /k/ memes, he seems like a fun autist to have a scotch with and talk about the history of bolt face development.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Don't care about /k/ memes, he seems like a fun autist to have a scotch with and talk about the history of bolt face development.
          Yeah he seems alright. I met him at the Denver airport once; saw him walking around the terminal, went over to shake his hand& say I'm a big fan. He was supeee friendly and wished me a good day. He's the reason i ever picked up an interest in guns as a kid, been watvhing him since the very beginning. Like you said, would be a fun autist to talk to

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >zoomer worshiping minor e-celeb
            Boomer-fudds might be moronic but we are truly fricked when the cringe zoomers become the majority of gun owners in the future.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Post gun newbie

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >it's bad that people will own guns
              Frick off you grifting taker homosexual

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Post your guns you tourist zoomer.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              What the actual frick are these words?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Saying hi to a guy you enjoy the content of when you run into him
              >e-celeb worship
              Get your head checked.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://talk.youradio.cz/porady/czech-firearms-podcast/ep-33-ian-mc-collum-forgotten-weapons-en
          About 35 mins in if anyone is curious.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > he said he was permanently banned from Desert Brutality
      That’s kind of sad. He seems to enjoy those kinds of events

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He's just banned from Karl's events. He's involved with all the other ones, including the brutality matches he had a hand in creating. Karl gets buttmad about this on social media saying Ian copied him.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >self described communist getting buttmad about 'intellectual property'
          pottery

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This board fricking sucks lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you for your quality& insightful weapons-related contribution

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Vietnam vets loved the m16

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >operating illegally in Cambodia and Laos
      >choosing an American rifle

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Before I knew about guns but knew of guns, I always assumed that M14s were what was used during the Korean War because they look like a Korean War kind of gun.
    Then I learned M14 came into service 4 years after it ended.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Okay, what was a worse American service rifle then?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's not even the best M1 with a magazine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Can't believe the italians of all people made a better M14 than the americans

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >be exactly what the M14 was supposed to be
      >be better at being an M14 to boot
      >also cheaper
      >also came out first
      the more you look at the M14 the more you realize how much of a fricking joke it is

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Can't believe the italians of all people made a better M14 than the americans

      IIRC those mags are fricking solid too. Just feel stupid rigid. The US really should've looked at them.
      t. played with a mag from one a couple days ago

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    blah blah blah blah who fricking cares what some random sloptuber says

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How isn't it?
    >Shortest service life of any US rifle by a mile
    >Supposed to have been a quick and cheap program that would make use of decent amounts of M1 tooling, wound up going over budget and not using any of the M1 tooling
    >Have one of the more memorable QC issues in service rifle history
    >Got beaten to the punch by the fricking Italian BM59, while also being more expensive and less reliable
    All this while being behind the times from day one and more suited for WWII than the Cold War.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Well-liked youtube gun guy says noncontroversial and widely accepted opinion
    >PrepHole sweats lose their shit and scream that guns are doomed
    What

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Manufactured drama

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      anon you have to understand how integral contrarianism is to the identities of zoomers, it's pretty much their replacement for a personality after they were developmentally stunted en masse by being allowed internet access too early

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >how integral contrarianism is to the identities of zoomers
        That's just channers, regardless of generation.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Clearly you are new here. Contrarianism on /k/ has been the norm since the zoomers were in booster seats

          You're both wrong

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I don't know, people here (blue boards in general, not necessarily /k/, and not newbie havens like PrepHoleeddit) used to be able to argue the points they made when they wanted to and weren't just shitposting for the sake of it. Zoomers seem way more kneejerky in how they form their opinions, they are SRS BSNS about it, and yet they often can't articulate why any deeper than "because that's the (opposite of) popular thing!" The signal to noise ratio here has never been lower.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Clearly you are new here. Contrarianism on /k/ has been the norm since the zoomers were in booster seats

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ian threads are basically just lazy b8posts, he's inoffensive, knows a lot and has a wide following so all you have to do to get some attention is act like a willful moron and say he's a commie/wrong/grifting/whatever. If OP made a thread about Karl it'd be boring since everyone that doesn't think John Brown was heckin' cool agrees that Karl's a complete locow.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I dislike Karl but think John Brown was based and righteous.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >he's inoffensive
        Idk anon his shilling is getting pretty fricking offensive at this point. Most videos have 2-3 sponsor and shill segments, his site is full of ads, and his shooting videos are behind a paywall. Keep in mind this is all while making great money from his Patreon and other businesses.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He's monetization is very mild compared to the yt standard.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >you can't make money from your own work
          It's getting stale Karl

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >shilling
          hilarious how this word has pretty much been reduced to meaninglessness by this point by morons like anon here who don't know what it actually means

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    don't trip now

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      not only is he a samegayging homosexual. He's also a phoneposter

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because he's a low test leftist cuck

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    M14 was outdated on first issue and had a whole lot of problems with accuracy (zero shift in the humid jungle) and reliability.
    Initial M-16's had issues too but they were mostly related to out-of-spec ammo gunking up the gun and not issuing cleaning kits because somebody claimed the DI system was "self-cleaning" or "self-lubricating" both of which are wrong.
    I think the next worst rifle after the M14 was the Springfield Model 1873 which was kept around too long in a classic case of a military being cheap and believing that increasing a soldier's volume of fire by issuing a repeating rifle wouldn't make him more lethal, but would just lead to wasted ammo. Probably partially true but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have done it anyway.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I mean at least the 1873 was cheap since it was just a conversion, reliable, and pretty accurate. Did it hang around for too long? Definitely, but it was still plenty serviceable and did what it needed to do.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >1873 was cheap since it was just a conversion,
        That's one of the problems, though -- it wasn't. It looked like the cheap option initially since it was just a conversion, but then the planned barrel boring/lining process didn't really work out, and they ended up making new guns after all. With the benefit of hindsight, non-conversion options like the Remington or Peabody/Martini family look better.

        Even with that, though, I can't see it as worse than the M14 at their respective times of adoption.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Initial M-16's had issues too but they were mostly related to out-of-spec ammo gunking up the gun
      That was on Colt and the DoD. They couldn't get enough of the correct powder from Dupont so they did a quick and dirty substitution which proved to be a god-awful mistake and then Colt in their infinite wisdom decided to drop the chrome-lined chambers because DUDE PRODUCTION SPEED LMAO which massively exacerbated the issue.

      >and not issuing cleaning kits because somebody claimed the DI system was "self-cleaning" or "self-lubricating" both of which are wrong.
      That was Colt yet again.

      Every teething problem the M16 had was due to Colt and the DoD Black personing things up, plain and simple.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I carried an M-14 for three years. Sad day when I had to turn mine in for a saber. Best parade rifle ever made.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For the time and circumstance that it was adopted? Literally was. The main reason it was adopted was because they thought that they could use Garand tooling to make it cheaper but it couldn't even do that.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you have an android and you're not using revanced, you're a fricking idiot

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There were two Aussie nam vets in my club when I started shooting in the early 2000s and one of them had mentioned trying out a M-16 on patrol and then going back to his SLR because of the 5.56 seemingly not penetrating foliage. That was just his opinion though, I have no dog in the fight just my anecdote, I think all the cold war rifles are super cool.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    goddamn that careertech Roastie prostitute bawd is hot as frick. I can fix her

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    he isn't wrong though. we deserved the FAL

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The FAL would have sucked just as badly because 90% of the M14s problems was on the manufacturer side.
      Another 5% are endemic to battle rifles.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *