Whose cuisine reigns supreme?
>>65338045Both were good. M14 is overhated.
>>65338045the one that costed less and served for longer while doing more and changing less from the original garand
>>65338084Fpbp>>65338045The BM59 was more economical if you had garands on hand, but if you wanted to make either from scratch, the m14 would be better from a manufacturing and service perspective.Early BM59s used the same complicated op rod that the Garand did, which is not an easy part to make, as well as having issues with bolt binding if it runs dry.The m14 at least has the bolt roller to help with that and straight op rod from the get go, which the BM59 only got later on.BM59 Magazines are much heavier duty and insert more naturally but that's about it for inherent benefits.The supposed controllability of the BM59 is all down to the muzzle brake, which Springfield pretty much duplicated for the Socom16. The M14 is lighter, in part because almost everything was tweaked for 308, slightly shorter bolt, receiver, oprod, etc. on the scales with irons my m14 is about a pound lighter than my bm59.If youre trying to decide on buying one or the other, on the cheap end the Chinese m14 clones that came in in the 90's are still a good bargain. They're less expensive than an M1A and they have forged receivers instead of cast. The bolts can be hit or miss, something to do with the heat treat on the bolts specifically, but GI bolts can be put in if it comes to that. On the top end, LRB and Bula make nice forged receivers ones as well, Fulton is decent too.I've seen BM59s go from 900-1500 in the past few years, depends on the individual gun, if it was a kit gun, who built it, etc. In conclusion, the best is of course the M1 carbine because it's much nicer to carry and plink with.
>>65338084>M14 is overhated.It's a decent rifle.No more, no less.The greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the M14 was always being incredibly overhyped. Both when it was new, and in modern day fuddlore.
The BM59 has the disadvantages of inheriting the Garands gas system which wasnt great. There isnt really a good reason to take one over an M14 or FAL
Yeah, it is.
>>65338084This nigga gets it
>>65338252Exactly, we're in the hate cycle of the mass opinion pendulum. Same thing that's happened to the Tiger, T34, and Sherman a few times now because John Q Public is a fucking retard and can only comprehend something as being either better than sex or a scream yourself awake nightmare
>>65338045Design-wise, they are both pretty good. Manufacturing-wise, Springfield Armory, Winchester, and Harrington & Richardson kept fucking up the M14 back when it mattered; it took them over a decade to get their shit together. If it wasn't thanks to the fourth company making them, TRW Inc., the M14 would be universally hated. No matter how good a design is, the people manufacturing it need to do their jobs right.>>65338084>M14 is overhated.I somewhat agree. The people who got a lemon in the 60s and 70s have a right to complain about their poor experience, even though the ones coming out now are good.
>>65338485The Tiger was a pretty okay tank including mechanically. The Panther is the shitter that pasted the final drive. Tigers still had more gears in the FD and distributed it better. Both the Tiger and Panther had straight cut gears while Shermans had herringbone (double helical) gears for the FD. Obviously the Sherman had a lot of growth room (Jumbo) but the Panther was teetering at limits platform wise.But obviously the Panther was an overgrown medium/"budget heavy" tank. The Tiger was a heavy tank from the getgo and had the maintenance crews to go with it especially early war.
>>65339224>Shitty simple reduction versus planetary gears where engagement is distributed.All blendered final drives just like 350Z's transmission exploding on launch.
>>65338485>T34The T-34s truly were massive pieces of shit, not just the early ones either. They deserve all the hate they get and then some.They're all badly designed, badly built, and made of sub-par materials.Despite being more expensive than Shermans in terms of man-hours and materials to manufacture, the T-34s were horrifically unreliable with effectively all of them being defective from the factory and having a very short estimated service life. Throughout the war, more of them were abandoned or lost to catastrophic mechanical failure than were ever destroyed by direct enemy action. Just to put things in perspective, the V-2 engines in these things had an estimated service life of 100 hours, most of them never even made it that far before shitting the bed, and most were considered worn out after running for 50 hours.Just look at the Aberdeen proving ground report on the T-34, you can bet your ass that the Soviets were trying their hardest to impress the Americans so they sent the best example of a T-34 they had.The Americans weren't impressed. They were just appalled at what a massive piece of shit the T-34 was.I know a guy that owns a rare variant based on one of the "good" late-war T-34/85s with the "good" 5-speed transmission, and he's always been open about the fact that it's a massive hunk of shit, by far the worst tank he's ever owned.
>>65339224The Tiger I also had commander's turret override (albeit a somewhat awkward one, but it was mechanically sound) whereas the Panther lacked that feature.
>>65339257T-34s had over hardened armor too:>"I want also to add that the Sherman's armor was tough. There were cases on our T-34 when a round struck and did not penetrate. But the crew was wounded because pieces of armor flew off the inside wall and struck the crewmen in the hands and eyes. This never happened on the Sherman.">t. Dmitry Loza (Lend Lease Sherman commander)Still it was the best Soviet medium tank available in numbers, for all the flaws (design and especially production) since they had nothing particularly better.
>>65339425>Still it was the best Soviet medium tank available in numbers, for all the flaws (design and especially production) since they had nothing particularly better.Absolutely true. Still doesn't change the fact that it was bad and absurdly overhyped, largely thanks to Soviet/russian propaganda and fuddlore portraying it as being cheap, simple, effective, reliable, and borderline indestructible, none of which is true. "smartest kid in special-ed" or "fastest runner at the special olympics"-kinda thing.
>>65339257>by far the worst tank he's ever owned.I would very much like to be in a position where I could form opinions like this.
