>m1 garand: kino>m14: garbageWas it really that hard to make an m1 garand but with a detachable mag and improved metallurgy? Where did they go wrong?
>>64183369>Where did they go wrong?By trying to shoehorn it into every role
>>64183369The M14 was a product improved M1 (QC issues notwithstanding), but it just wasn't as advanced as it could have been. The M1 was absolutely revolutionary in the 1930s. The M14 wasn't that much of an upgrade in the 1960s when assault rifles were starting to take over. In hindsight, of the rifles tested the AR-10 would have been the best choice, but hindsight is always 20/20. Between the M14 and FAL, I think the M14 we got was actually the better choice but still sub-optimal.
>>64183369The jungle isn't kind to wood stocks. Going against the AK means having something on par with it. Rate of suppresive fire, ammo per soldier, magazine capacity ect. Had the original m1 garand been in276 Pedersen as intended the m14 may have been a bigger evolution and what we would have now would be what we are desperately searching for and failed pretty hard.
>>64183369>Where did they go wrong?Corruption at Springfield Armory/Army Acquisitions.>Was it really that hard to make an m1 garand but with a detachable mag and improved metallurgy?No, look at the Italian BM 59. It's an M1 Garand done right.>>64183457>Had the original m1 garand been in 276 PedersenMore amazing potential lost to army corruption.
>>64183369It wasn't metallurgy which was the significant changes with the M14, they pretty much started over and redesigned everything about the rifle to try to make it an optimized and perfected M1 but with detachable mags and select-fire.That's also what the M14 ends up being eventually.The problem here was threefold.>1. The M1 and M14 were already outdated infantry rifles by the 1950s, assault rifles were the true future.>2. This shit took WAY too goddamn long, the development program for the M14 went on for ages, and when production finally began, it was painfully slow.>3. They wanted the M14 to do fucking EVERYTHING, it was going to not just fulfill the role of the rifle, it was also going to be the sniper rifle, the subgun, and the machinegun, all the same time at once, and it was of course fucking atrocious at being anything but a infantry rifle.For comparison, the Italians ended up with tooling and license to make M1 rifles, and they wanted to upgrade, but they didn't have the time and means to completely revamp it like in the U.S, so they settled for devising the BM59, a 7.62mm NATO Garand variant with a fire selector and which takes detachable 20rd mags. This was still outdated, but it was an easy and economical change for them to make, and didn't take over a decade to achieve, so they got a roughly comparable end result in a more efficient manner, even if the BM59 isn't AS refined as the M14.>>64183410I'd say that once the M1 had been retrofitted away from the original gas trap setup by the start of WW2, it was an absolutely phenomenal rifle (I love it so much), and basically the best infantry rifle of the war by the virtue of being a widespread standard issue semi-automatic in a conflict where most other infantry rifles were bolt-actions.I'd be curious to hear why you think the M14 would be better than an FAL though. I think the more in-line stock with a pistol grip would be more practical, and I like its reload more.
>>64183457>>64183733Douggie was right about .276 Pedersen in his time, the U.S Army was lucky to even get the budget for a self-loading rifle, they were never going to get budgetted for getting new machineguns in the calibers, especially when they already had mountains of .30-06 from WW1, and with the logistics of the time, having that ammo commonality was an advantage they would not want to be without.The only real convenient time for a rifle cartridge like .276 Pedersen to have gotten its foot in the door before WW2 would have been if the Springfield 1903 had been developed around that caliber, and that would have been unlikely, as the 1903's existence is owed to the U.S Army wishing that they had Mauser 98s instead of Krag rifles, and they especially wanted a cartridge akin to 7.92mm Mauser in machineguns.The stars were just never aligned for it back in the earlier days. You would need to try to irrumate René Studler and then to try to force a .27 caliber rifle cartridge as the NATO standard instead of the 7.62mm that we ended up getting.
NTA but for the Americans the m14 was the obvious choice. They in theory had most of the tooling from the M1 already. Additionally the military always prefers something in house rather than from some foreign euro nation design (for better or worse).The rifles are very similar in terms of caliber and capabilities, so there wasn't really any particular selling point to choose the FAL instead even if it was a marginally better rifle.
>>64184377Debatably, in the 50s, the FAL was a worse gun. I still contend no way to force the bolt forward is a major design flaw. The gas system is just an overcomplicated mess just begging for some enlisted fuckstick to fiddle with it until it jams every shot. And on the topic of jamming, no sand bolt. The sand bolt singlehandedly makes the FAL twice the rifle ot was before. Really, for as awful as the M14 was in retrospect, FALfags need to swallow the hard pill their gun was bad when we made the decision. I can only base this off my own experiences with both guns but genuinely I found the M14 a nicer and less problematic rifle compared to the FAL that choked on every mag I used except for DSA plastic mags (which didn't activate the BHO)
>>64183936>especially when they already had mountains of .30-06 from WW1, and with the logistics of the time, having that ammo commonality was an advantage they would not want to be without.Except that mountain of 30-06 couldn't be used on the M1 Garand without breaking the gun. They used the high-power stuff on the machine guns and made new M2 ball ammo weaker for the Garand.
>>64183369Already had this discussion https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/64138944/
>>64184464Guess what homo, no one cares
'battle rifles' do not exist and never have
i hope the new m1 garands by CMP are good. i might buy one.
>>64184735Are they in .30-06?
>>64184747https://thecmp.org/m1-garand-by-cmp/Google is your friend
>Where did they go wrong?Trying to make it replace an infantry rifle, a carbine, a submachine gun, and an automatic rifle. >>64184438>Except that mountain of 30-06 couldn't be used on the M1 Garand without breaking the gun. Yes it could. The M1 rifle had no issue using M1906 or M1 ball.>They used the high-power stuff on the machine guns and made new M2 ball ammo weaker for the Garand.No they didn't. M2 ball is just M1906 ball made with a different jacket material; it was still doing 2700fps from a 24" test barrel. In 1940 they switched to IMR 4895 powder in the M2 ball and got another 100fps muzzle velocity with actually less peak pressure.
Real talk: US military small arms over the last century have been comparatively kind of mediocre, with the odd exception here and there>SidearmM1911 was great, nothing innovative since >Rifle Wide issuing of M1 Garand great, but then immediately lagged behind afterwards>LMG/MMGStuck with mediocre weapons like the BAR and M1919, because of emphasis on the individual rifleman, much decent until we started manufacturing the M240
>>64185062I meant to add the caveat "UNTIL RECENTLY", now that sufficient consideration has been given to suppression, and the proliferation of the AR platform
>>64183369People are gonna say it is too heavy, or it was forced into lmg roles which are both true, but something that I think is worth noting is this gun had the worst manufacturing QC of all time. The guns just didn't work reliably but were pushed out of factories despite subpar quality anyway. Ian has a video about it. I don't think it would be nearly as hated as it is today if the people making it didn't cut corners and fuck up horrendously
>>64183733>muh corruptionThanks, it makes it easy to spot the lazy midwit takes when you lead with this
>>64184697I died on that hill years ago friend. Gaylo fucked a new generation of enthusiasts and it's here to stay now
>>64185131It isn't really hated today outside of terminally online zoomers and millenials desperate to show just how big of "gun guys" they are by hating any of them that aren't offered in dogshit cheap versions they can afford
>>64184697Partially correct. The term "battle rifle" is mostly a retronymn, aka a name given after something is practically gone. Contemporary sources tend to call them automatic rifles or assault rifles but BR evolved sometime around the late 70s to early 80s to draw a line between the new intermediate assault rifles (which were also called carbines and SMGs back then) and the full power rifles. Personally I think the name is dumb because "Full power, autoloading rifle" is a shockingly loose definition that certain retards act like its so perfectly defined and you're stupid for pointing out how bad it is. Like, I get we need a way to lump a lot of barely related, autoloading service rifles together, but pull the stick out your ass and stop acting like I raped your dad and killed your mother for calling the FAL an Assault rifle when I use the Austrian service designation. All that said, battle rifle is an established term now, therefore it's real due to use and being mostly commonly understood. Much like how "swag" wasn't a word until the vast majority of the population understood what it meant and could use it
>>64183369I like the m14
>>64185062>m1919>mediocreshit opinion
>>64185263It's too light to be a HMG and at ~32lbs it's too heavy to be an LMGNo quick change barrelBelt fed onlyPretty low RoF at 400-600RPMSure it's probably better than the Japanese or Italian competitor, but that's about the best that can be said. Another WW1-era piece of outdated equipment.
>>64185299it's not supposed to be an LMG or HMG though, it's an MMG, so im not sure why you're comparing it to either. it's only 5lb more than the m240/mg34/mg42 with a lighter weight tripod than the mg34/42. while not having a quick change barrel isn't great, the lower RoF isn't necessarily bad. im not arguing it's the best mg ever, but it is good especially compared to other countries at the time.
>>64185347It's "OK" compared to German, British, or USSR competitors, which is why it's just mediocre instead of bad. Yeah it's an MMG, and that's fine if it's mounted on a vehicle but for an infantry squad it's in this weird middle ground.A very critical point about the MG34 comparison: it is true that the guns themselves only have a five pound weight difference, however the MG34 could use a 1lb bipod while the M1919 strictly required the 45lb tripod until the A6
they did not make the m14 small enough
>>64185167>establishedSorry, you may think that and are entitled to your opinion.
>>64185146I'm going to go to my grave. Never say dieAutomatic rifles
>>64185451These men were cool for being innovative You want to be cool for being stagnant
>>64185139>Thanks, it makes it easy to spot the lazy midwit takes when you lead with thisThe US Army Ordnance Board and Springfield were so blatant about their corruption that the army got rid of them and established the AMC. Only a retard would call a well-established fact a "midwit take."
>>64185483>"These men"Faggot.
>>64183896>The M1 and M14 were already outdated infantry rifles by the 1950s, assault rifles were the true future."assault rifles" are meaningless, they were outdated because of their design.
>>64185812oh yeah I didn't realise I was speaking with fucking Eugene Stoner himself, what an honour
1945 M1 Garand unit cost: $31 for the rifle, no accessories ($556 adjusted 2025)1968 M14 unit cost: $105, also no accesories. ($975 adjusted)I get WW2 had le war economy and im sure it would be impossible to match that price even if you just kept making garands but for the barely noticable improvements the M14 brought to the table (no, reload speed doesnt win firefights on a strategic scale), it was pretty doomed to be a dissapointment.Funnily enough, a 1968 M16A1 was $110, actually pretty expensive for what it was given how cheap we make them now.
>>64185832>realise / honourGet off of my board and stay off. Stay off the internet, brainlet
>>64183369half-assed the mag design and cheaped out on quality control, so it jammed like a bitch and broke under stress.
>>64185820Wrong. The M16 and AK made the M14, FAL, and G3 obsolete.
>>64183369>m14>garbageI love this cope.>soldiers and Marines who actually used it>loved itThere is such a disconnect between /k/ and reality it's honestly hilarious.
>>64184438Yeah but in emergencies you could and most importantly the factories and tooling already existed.
>Was it really that hard No, as the spaghettifags demonstrated with the BM59, but leave it to Springfield to fuck up the whole thing to the point Robbie M. personally smote them into the shadow realm.
>>64188194>BM59 dickridingI've shot it and they're legit trash.
>>64188224Nah, you're wrong.
>>64188181I wouldn't call the M14 garbage, not at all, it's functional, has great sights (inherited from the M1), and overall is roughly comparable to other battle rifles. It's an improved M1 (which was excellent for its time), but an improved M1 was just quickly getting dated by the 1950s.There's the additional part where production lagged like fuck, so many people were stuck with M1s for a very long time, and then there's the part where the M14 was intended to also play sniper/DMR, LMG, and SMG, and that's just not a realistic expectation for ANY infantry rifle, full powered or intermediate.>>64185854M1 tooling had been around for some time by 1945, so economy of scale would have done its thing by then and brought down the price, I suspect the M1's receiver was not very cheap to forge 15 years earlier. Meanwhile, the AR15 would have been brand new, so they just started tooling up.
>>64188181>>64188224>overpayed for an M1A and coping
>>64188243BasedHow is that SVT?
>>64188287Abject trash, whenever I see people here saying the Garand is inferior to it I legit laugh.
>>64188224The BM59 is like 80% M1 by parts, and I won't tolerate shittalking the Grand Pinger.>>64188416People who think the SVT40 and G43 are better than the M1 have unrealistic fantasies about tactical reloads with extended magazines.From the Russians' own point of view, a self-loading rifle was pretty cool, and it wasn't very heavy, but the stock was a little fragile, and the precision was really not that good (also it got hot fast, making it worse).They actually had similar expectations to it like with the M14, where the SVT-40 was also going to be a sniper's rifle, and a light machinegun (AVT-40), but it was just not suitable for those things at all.Their better troops took some liking to it, some learning to get used to its quirks and flaws, while the general consensus from leadership was that the rifle would be completely wasted on the emergency conscripts, hence why they amped up Mosin Nagant production instead.
>>64183936>the 1903's existence is owed to the U.S Army wishing that they had Mauser 98s instead of Krag rifles, and they especially wanted a cartridge akin to 7.92mm Mauser in machinegunsThe US’ first exposure to the Mauser was the Model 1893 during the war with Spain. I still wonder why American top brass decided to develop a rifle in a cartridge similar to the German 8mm instead of a 7mm cartridge like Spain, Latin America and the Boer guerrillas used.
>>64188518>unrealistic fantasies about tactical reloads with extended magazines.It has the clip quides for a reason, the 1-2 mags you had as spares were really meant to be used if the primary was damaged in some way. I really think that, yeah, some people believe they were just using them like proto-M14s and casually inserting and dropping mags. Nevermind the fucking things have to be fitted on a per-rifle basis to ensure actual reliability. >the stock was a little fragileI'd say more than a little, my UHG is splitting despite the reinforcement pins and the wrists were particularly prone to splitting. There's a reason that after they were they used AVT furniture whenever possible during the rearsenal process.>and the precision was really not that goodThe stock bedding is absolute AIDS, you don't even really need a scope to start noticing the stringing when it gets heated up.>the general consensus from leadership was that the rifle would be completely wasted on the emergency conscriptsTo be frank the SVT would have been an unmitigated disaster if placed in conscript hands.
>>64188614>7x57mm Mauser (.280 caliber)>.30-06 Springfield (.308 caliber)>7.92x57mm Mauser (.324 caliber)Maybe they wanted to split the difference or something?>>64188644Correct on all parts. They actually did trial drums for the AVT-40, so it makes me wonder if those were meant to be reloaded with clips too?
>>64188687My money is that they would've been almost always on semi unless given directions otherwise (much like with the AVT as initially issues), even with the drums. They'd have a number of the drums on them, or with a dedicated ammo bearer, and reload them after the action.
>>64188714That is to say it wouldn't really matter how they were reloaded so much as when.
>>64188193 >>64188251 >>64184377>They in theory had most of the tooling from the M1 already.>M1 tooling had been around for some time by 1945>the factories and tooling already existed.Could you stop spreading Springfield propaganda? They used the excuse of sharing M1 tooling with the M14 to get the contract, but by the time the design was done, they needed completely new tooling.>"but muh iron sights.">"but muh buttplate on the early models."The second generation onwards had to make new, redesigned ones. They were on their third gen by the late 1960s, and the army pulled the plug on the project.
>>64188762I'm no fan of the Bean Counter in Chief, but SA's bungling of the M14 was so egregious that were basically begging for him to shutter them permanently. And he obliged them.
>>64188773>SA's bungling of the M14 was so egregious that were basically begging for him to shutter them permanently. And he obliged them.Exactly.
>>64188773>McNamara was an insufferable autist who put numbers above all else and didn't consider any of the nuances that existed beyond that giving us some monumental procurement fuckups>Springfield ARSEnal couldn't have handled things any worse if they tried and were suicidally retarded to not make sure the deployment was squeaky clean when they knew goddamned well McNamara would crucify them if they fucked it up (and they absolutely fucked it up)both things can be true
>>64188762>Could you stop spreading Springfield propaganda? They used the excuse of sharing M1 tooling with the M14 to get the contractI am not talking about that part, nor was the post I addressed, at least as I understood it.Anon compared the production cost of the M1, late in its life, to the M14's (and M16's) in the beginning of its life, and I said that production cost would not be directly comparable.The M1's receiver is a complex forging, and the M14's receiver is a very similar forging, neither would start out cheap.I fully agree that the claim of being able to use M1 tooling was a lie to get the contract.
>>64188224Elaborate.
>>64189455The BM59 is a derivation of the M1 Garand, and it has a reputation for being reasonably controllable for being select-fire battle rifle with a traditional style dropped stock, compare to the M14 which has a reputation for the muzzle really wanting to climb a lot in full-auto.This isn't because of any inherent quality of the BM59 or M1 Garand, rather the Italians just recognized that full-auto was going to be a bitch with this kind of rifle, so the muzzle device functions as a compensator to let the user better control it (in addition to mitigating flash, and accepting grenades and bayonets). Really, this is something the M14, FAL, and G3 should all have done to some extent.Even if you weren't going to actually have full-auto for one of those, it would still be very helpful for rapid semi-auto fire, and it would definitely help if you had to provide some limited full-auto on the spot (and I mean a few 2-3rd bursts, not trying to play GPMG). The BM59 frequently also exhibits a foldable bipod, which definitely isn't unique to it, you would see that on some G3s, but nonetheless, and it's the kind of thing which would also help if you had to do full-auto with this kind of weapon.The BM59 isn't strictly that much better as a rifle than the M14 beyond this (and the M14 has various smaller refinements over it), but it gets compared to the M14 due to achieving basically the same kind of weapon with FAR less money, time, and fuss, so it gets argued that it's basically what the U.S should simply have done instead.
>>64183369>tfw no m2 garand
I like the Krag.
>>64189544The American one, the Norwegian one, or the Danish one?
>>64189599All of them.
>>64189528I want a linearly scaled up M1 Garand to .50BMG, to arm some sort of hypothetical giant. I also want a linearly scaled down M1 Garand in 5.56mm, to arm a child with.
>>64190033>I also want a linearly scaled down M1 Garand in 5.56mmRuger Mini 14?
>>64190332But with an internal mag
>>64183896When I say M14 in the following context I refer to the T44 as opposed to the T48 FAL.I think the choice they made at the time was a good one for several reasons.>M14 was lighter>More familiar in terms of controls to people used to operating M1s>More familiar mechanically in terms of maintenance >Much better in arctic climates, which was considered important at the time >Better sights>Better mechanical accuracy which was considered important >Self adjusting gas system as opposed to manually adjustable with too many settings >Better magazine feed lip design The FAL was probably slightly more controllable in automatic fire, but that was secondary to the M14 being better as a rifle. They did want it to do the job of the BAR as well, but I think it was just a lower priority. Something it could do in a pinch.A lot of the serious shortcomings in terms of accuracy and reliability came from quality control problems once they entered production with H&R and Winchester underbidding their contracts having underestimated the challenge of building a new rifle as opposed to a slightly tweaked M1. Perhaps if they had been told to make FALs they would have approached it with a greater degree of care, but it's hard to say. They could very well have shat out some fucked up FALs too, only at least on the FAL there is a bit less tolerance stacking where you screw up one thing and it manifests as something else.
>>64190033>>64190392>scaled down M1 Garand in 5.56mm>with an internal magSurprised that some boutique firm or anon gunsmith hasn't limited-produced something like this yetAlso it would be great if Ruger would re-design and re-launch a Mini-14 2.0 with a properly built and engineered stock, bedding and barrel (it could use the same mags as 1.0)this would be more of an M14 scale replica visually (especially forward part of rifle) i.e. the old Mini-14 GB variants but with flash hider, gas port, handguard closer to actual M14 appearance
>>64184810Wait is that his Arisaka to the left in that pic as well? I ask this becuase I have an Arisaka with wood that looks damn near identical. Been hard to find one of that color, much less ALSO with the spalting seen in that pic.
>>64184424Early FALs have forward assists.t.Israeli FAL owner (First country to adopt the 'metric' pattern)
>>64190587You would need to make 5.56 en blocs which would be fuck you expensive.
>>64192741>make 5.56 en blocs which would be fuck you expensiveWhy would that be? It's a simple bit of stamped metal.
>>64192741>>64192754yeah that ought to be one of the least problematic aspects of an M1 Garand 5.56-scaled
>>64184438That myth was debunked a long, long time ago anon. Let's not keep spreading it.>hint: the m1 rifle was developed, passed its field trials, and was standardized and put into production before m2 ammunition existed
>>64190417>serious shortcomings in terms of accuracy and reliability came from quality control problemsI'm getting a bit tired of this myth as well. It wasn't like the output from one or two manufacturers were having problems. All of the manufacturers were having problems, including the one that developed the fucking thing. They had problems, even when they were built properly - which as you pointed out wasn't a given.The design had plenty of problems. They weren't insurmountable for a target rifle, but some of them were deal breakers for a service rifle that had to go out and do service rifle things not involving a well manicured KD range. And...well, you know how that story ended.>don't make me give my greentext ted talk about it yet again>I swear to fucking god most of you have the memory of a goldfish, are completely delusional, or both
>>64185131Basically the same issue as the L85. The design is okay, but the manufacturing was so dogshit that people assumed that it was the gun itself and not the corner-cutting fucknuts at the factory.
>>64184464every time 'this discussion' comes up there's plenty of the technical engineering rifle-itself (the rifles themselves), but not very much of what the infantryman's role or the role/capability of the infantryman's primary small arm is.During WWII the U.S. had two (2) main self loading rifles, the M1 Carbine and M1 Garand, issued and manufactured by the millions. At some point especially after development of MP 44 the roles and "philosophy of use" of these differing small arms in different chamberings had to converge and the protracted 1950s development of the M14 (along with, could also say, the FAL and G3) didn't address or accomplish that.
>>64184810>>64192617Okay, I did a little more research after this was still bothering me and apparently that's a Chinese Garand copy, and the rifle behind it isn't an Arisaka, it's a Xiangying rifle. Damn. Still only know of one Arisaka like mine.
>>64183369One of the M14's biggest issues was production. As with every other small arms program the army had coming out of Springfield turns out nobody they sent instructions to could read and the production rate was abysmal. We ended up buying the AR-15 more so due to being worried that we wouldn't have enough modern rifles to issue out if the cold war broke out (and when Vietnam started to go hot in particular) and would have to supplement them with M1s which everybody knew would be a near death sentence at that point for any frontline unit. That's why we adopted the M16 so fast.
>>64196002Also because live field testing of 1000 examples under Project AGILE had shown that the AR15 was a modern rifle which wasn't just available, it looked like it was also really good.Doubts were sated by reassurances that the M14 and M16 both would eventually be replaced by the SPIW
