I have a question for Americans and/or anyone who understands the imperial measurement system:
NATO standard is to use meteoric, as a former NATO soldier I understand well meteoric calibers. However the equivalent imperial calibers make no sense to me.
Case in point; 30-06 & .308 are both 7.62mm, why the different numbers if they are the same caliber?
Then .303 to the logic of the number .308 implies the .303 is smaller then .308, however .303 is 7.7mm, which is bigger. How can this be?
@JimmyG228 The .303 is named from the distance between the bore and the lands, which is from the the black powder age. While the .308 refer to the initial bullet diameter prior to the bullet being fired from the chamber
@KiresKnight .303 British (not black powder) rounds does refer to the caliber in relation to the diameter of the bullet from what I know.
What about the 30-06 & .308 both being 7.62mm, makes no sense to me the numbers would be different for the same caliber. On NATO cartridge charts the 30-06 is 7.62x63mm & the .308 is 7.62x51mm. Thus infantry proofing the difference in cartridge.
@JimmyG228 .30-06 is not a "modern" imperial measurement--it specifically means "30 caliber, adopted in 1906." There was also a .30-03, adopted in 1903. They are all technically .308 caliber bullets as far as I know, they were just named using a different naming convention, before there was a modern, standardized way to refer to ammunition.
@wcropp1 As far as .303 British goes, I really have no idea. I do know that some European countries (Russia specifically) measure bore diameter from the lands, rather than the grooves, or a rifled barrel.
@wcropp1 I believe I got that backwards--many European countries measure from the *grooves* rather than the lands. Either way, their projectiles are slightly larger (if I remember correctly, they may be smaller) on paper because of the way they measure them. Regardless, there are inconsistencies between different countries depending upon how they measure bore diameter.
by far the best rifle i have ever fired... with iron sights its highly accurate... sure its heavy and its not one of these new rifles with everything but the kitchen sink hanging off it that grown men running around in multicam costumes playing special forces tend to favor... but this old boy from alabama will stick to this made in the usa ass kicker
@imjaketete1 Don't, I paid 1300 for mine, that's about the limit for a good one. Polytemp makes one, It's chinese, I give dirty looks to anyone who owns one of them, it's not american and the receiver is very difficult to make, you pay for the lack of quality, save up the extra 3-400 and get yourself a good one!
M14: The best assault rifle ever created! Why? Because it was made like an M1 Garand. Powerful, reliable, accurate, heavy, long barreled, this rifle had it all. Only the AK-47 can compare.
When I was in the USN, back in '86, I had never shot a rifle in my life. Not even a .22LR. The carrier I was on was nuclear, and so we had a special detail called NRST (nuclear reactor security team) that was a back up team in case the Marines were tied up with something else. I was on the team. Our primary wepon was the M-14. So we all had to qualify with it. Remember, I had never shot anything larger than a pellet gun. Wow. I loved it! I was a very good shot. Enough that I got a medal.
@melgibsonsballs true, but how much has it truly been utilized since it was replaced in the early Vietnam years? Not very much. The score has more to do with how long it was "actively" used, not just how long its been kept in the arsenal.
@syalcin123 are you fucking stupid? alot of non-american rifles are listed. its just the g3 doesnt need to be put in because its not ass good as any of the other rifles
It is prefect! I never struggled with this rifle, was glad to have it over the M-16 and I worked the mountains as a 0311 and Forward Observer tramping up and down steep terrain. Even now as a militiaman I use the M1A/M-14 as it will out fight a AK47 or a M16, AR15 which I also own, but M1A/M14 is my main offensive weapon.
m14, a rifleman's rifle, back in the days when the military did not teach area supression except to machinegun teams and instead taught marksmanship... ah the elegance of efficeincy
@snogs11 You forgot about submachineguns. It's simply just a change in tactics. They did many battlefield reports in Korea that showed that a fully automatic rifle was useful to the infantryman.
I think the Mosin Nagant should be in 10th place instead of M14. They say the M14 was around for 40 years, Mosin Nagant has been around for over 100 years and even served in Chechnya, Russian snipers used them. IF they wanted a rifle that has been around for a while then Mosin Nagant definitely beats the M14.
@4everUSNavy Well if they wanted to put in a DMR, they can certainly put in the SVD instead of the M14, I mean look at the top gun, the AK 47, the most reliable gun in the world, SVD has the exact same operation, it's cheap and easily mass produced. Also, I don't even see a single HK weapon on here, HK also makes really good guns. I mean I don't even know why they put Springfield 03, it's an American remake of the Kar 98. Also, M1 Garand, it may have been the first sucsessful semi auto rifle...
@4everUSNavy but what about the SVT 40? Or the G41? Or the G43? They said a major problem for the M1 was that when the last round fired the entire clip flew out, it also holds 8 rounds while those other Semi auto rifles hold 10 rounds and they don't have a problem when the gun runs out of ammo. You must understand it's an American show they want to put more of their guns on there just so that people cheer on America but there are far better weapons than the ones listed here.
@4everUSNavy Okay, but the M14 is a DMR, just like the SVD, the magazine capacity is not a critical feature of DMR's. The M14 was designed to be a battle rifle which was later added a scope and became a DMR, while the SVD was designed to be a DMR from the start. But that is not the reason they put it on the list, they put it on the list because it served long (40 years). But the Mosin Nagant has been around for over a century. Another DMR is the PSG 1, why isn't that on the list?
@Unit987654321 Because the PSG 1 isn't reliable or durable enough for military service, its accuracy is frankly average, and its only significance is an anachronistic appearance in Black Ops and popular with a few police services.
@planb1532190 I think that the muzzle flash was the problem with the carbines M38 and M44. I own a mosin nagant M91/30 and I see no problem with the bolt, I think it's a matter or oiling it up.
@m14Lover308 WWII had more emphasis on fixed lines, rather than long range patrols. 16 rounds of .30/06 weighs a pound. 160 rounds is 10 lbs, so with a 9 lb rifle, and 176 rounds ammo, you have 20 lbs. (a good ref: Soldiers Load and the Mobility of a Nation by SLA Marshall).
@DonMeaker Soldiers are probably more encumbered by weight today then they were back then. The load bearing equipment a soldier has to carry has kept going up.
@esh325 A key element is body armor. It reduces fear, but increases fatigue. In Desert/Mountain, throw in water!!! All the more reason to cut down on the weight of the rifle/ammunition when you can.About 1/3 of body weight is the most you can carry on the march. In combat you want to carry about 20 lbs less.
Hits with lots of energy. Goes through sandbags, trees and still kills targets. Very accurate, powerful, reliable. "Soldiers in Vietnam struggled with the weight of the weapon," Never heard a Marine say that. They loved them. .308 rounds are large and very powerful, .223 rounds are "weak" (as long as it's not a piercing-type and on soft targets). M14 is a personal favorite.
@mrbobyub One of the big reasons why the M14 was put out of service in Vietnam, was because the AK had greater firepower and was a more effective close range firearm. I agree though that the .223 is not powerful enough. I think the 7.62x51 is too powerful though. A round in between like the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 grendel would have been ideal.
@esh325 I'm pretty sure that the the AKs firing the 7.62x39 at 600rpm with a muzzle velocity of 715 m/s (2,346 ft/s) did not have greater firepower than the M-14s firing the 7.62x51 at 700-750rpm with a muzzle velocity of 850 m/s (2,800 ft/s). I'm also pretty sure that the AKs (especially the Type 56 which was wider produced than the original Russian AKs) suffered from extreme muzzle shake. What people know as the AK-47 is a piece of shit, the one that is actually reliable is the AKM.
@wikieditspam I can give you a link to an army report where they said the AK-47 was a better rifle then the M14. For close range fighting, the better ballistics of the 7.62x51 largely goes to waste. It's overpowered. The M14 might have had higher rate of fire, but it held 10 less rounds in the magazine and had poor controlobility in fully automatic, where the AK was better. Actually, the original AK-47 wasn't a piece of shit at all.
@wikieditspam The only reason the AKM replaced the AK-47 was because the AKM was cheaper to produce,lighter, and slightly better full auto characteristics because of the slant shaped compensator. The AK-47 was just as reliable as the AKM.
@esh325 The advantage of the 5.56x45 is from the ability to carry more ammunition. That means you can shoot at known and suspected enemy locations. By contrast with the M-14, bullets are 20 to the pound, and you can't afford to shoot at anything that isn't a real target. Result. With the M-16 you could fire first. With the M-14 you had to wait and only fire when you saw something move, or saw a muzzle flash. the M-16 is plenty lethal within 200 meters (round fragments) if you hit someone
@DonMeaker There's nothing stopping you from carrying the same amount of 7.62x51 ammo as 5.56x45, it's just heavier. You'll have to ditch your other equipment though to still remain mobile. A lot of reports about the round suggest that it's not lethal enough. In one report by an army doctor, he said the M193 round had a tendency to leave the body without fragmenting or yawing, and would hit like a .22 LR. The M885 is even more hampered.
@esh325 Yes, there is something stopping you from carrying the same number of 7.62 rounds as 5.56 rounds: the weight. No round is lethal enough, this side of the 8 in howitzer. T.Roosevelt wrote of the effects of 7mm Mauser on US soldiers: If hit in brain, spine or heart, you died. If hit anywhere else, you recovered, and quickly. Lavoiser was guillotined, and didn't die for 16 seconds- but couldn't reach his weapons rather before that.
@DonMeaker If you think the type of round doesn't matter, does that mean you would choose a .22 LR over a .45 acp? All rounds can kill. It's also a fact that some kill better then others though. While there's no magical one shot stop round, larger caliber rifles tend to do better. Paul Howe who fought in Mogadishu, recalls how the 5.56x45 was not very effective against the Somolians, on the other hand, he found the 7.62x51 to be much more effective.
@esh325 Of course the type of round matters. Some rounds do more damage. Other rounds permit more mobility, and more rounds to be carried. I rather like the 12.7x99, but schlepping the rounds is a pain. Each has advantages. I think the 5.56x45 has a good package of capabilities, which is why people converted from 7.62X51 and 7.62x39 to 5.56x45 and 5.54x39. Swedes even converted from 6.5 to 5.56. China is converting from 7.62x39 to 6.8, but they are a 'conservative' people.
@DonMeaker The western countries converted to 5.56x45 because the US mandated to the NATO that they had to. The Swedes converted to the 7.62x51 also which was arguebally inferior and offered no advantage over the 6.5x55. They did it simply because of NATO. I think the 5.45x39 is some what of an improvement over the 5.56x45. The 5.8mm by the Chinese might be also.
@esh325 Or rather, various countries recognized that in many situations the first round fired means the first round hit. More rounds carried means more rounds fired. Suppression fire was used in WWI, but you are just as suppressed with a 5.56 going over you as you would be with a 7.62 or 8mm. Keeping a an enemy head down with fire permits friendly maneuver.
@esh325 So various countries recognized the tactical advantages as I stated, and agreed to a standardization agreement. The US had so much influence that the Belgian design was selected.
@DonMeaker One thing to think about, is that a lot of the countries that signed it never saw much of any combat , so the idea of a lightweight,low recoiling cartridge, seems ideal for training in peace time. The 4.85mm bullet the British came up with outperformed the 5.56x45, but they chose the M885 largely because the US already was using the 5.56x45.
@DonMeaker The use actually considered replacing the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 with the 6mm saw in the 1970's. Politics and NATO stopped this from happening.
@esh325 I remember the SAW considered the 6mm, but there was some institutional memory of what the world was like with .45ACP SMGs .30 Carbine, and .30/06, as well as .50BMG in the same units. The 5.56 doesn't guarantee that an elephant will drop with one shot, but few things do. I rather liked the M193 effect on flesh, with the cannelure to enhance fragmentation. Course I like the 7.62X51, the 7.62X54R and the3 .30/06. My all time favorite: 7mm BR for which I have a pistol.
@esh325 So various countries recognized the tactical advantages as I stated, and agreed to a standardization agreement. The US had so much influence that the Belgian design was selected.
@esh325 Nope, the 5.45 has terrible ballistics, even worse than the 5.56. I hear the 5.8 has a tendency to overpenetrate. The 5.56 isn't perfect, but it's the best small caliber intermediate round there is. Stepping up, the 6.8 and 6.5 are superior to all, the 6.8 has the most stopping power, but the 6.5 is accurate to 1000 yards.
@esh325 spitzer bullets all yaw when they hit flesh. Rifling only stabilizes in air, flesh is 1000x as dense. center of lift is at the 25% point, and center of mass is behind that, so the round yaws (or pitches) quickly. If round doesn't break, it exits tail end first. M193 within 200m fragments. M855 does too. German 7.62mm rounds have thin steel jacket, and fragment and flatten, US 7.62s have thick bronze jacket, and act like a solid. "Lethal enough" is an unattainable fiction.
@DonMeaker Yes, they will. M885 out of a M4 barrel won't fragment more then 60m's I believe. In the report, I have, even with a 20 inch barrel firing the M193, they reported the bullets leaving the torso even before yawing or fragmenting. So at close range it can't be always relied upon to fragment.
Ok. We've got the M14 and the FAL, but no mention of the G3. It's only one of the most prolific 7.62 NATO battle rifles around along with the FAL. Seems like a bit of an oversight...
@Gunfan762 For me the ergos are fine. I also shoot it better than an M1A or FAL. Truth be told, I don't think the ergos are any worse than an AK family rifle, all things considered. As for other factors, the G3 is easily one of the most realiable weapons ever created, is more than accurate enough for a battle rifle, and has been used in almost as many countries as the FAL while the M14 was the shortest-lived main rifle in US military history (next post)
@Gunfan762 The M14 is also only seeing use in a specialized role and is steadily being replaced by rifles like the LMT MWS, Knights SR-25 family, and the like. Not saying the M14 is a bad rifle, but it's constantly overrated.
@esh325 Last I heard the Army is in the process of adopting the M110 and the Navy's been using the Mk11 Mod 0 for some time. Both are variants of the SR-25.
@7x57mmMauser how is that when we have been around longer than theMarine corps and we give the Marines their pay check? go ahead look at a a Marine pay check and you will see "Department of the Navy" written all over it
@persicionairsoftteam Do you need that power and longer range though? The M14 itself and its ammo is heavier then the AK. It's also longer. The stock does not fold like the AK does. Field stripping and cleaning is easier ton the AK.
@MrSwimmingmango AKS-47 is not the same at all. The AKS-47 fires 7.62x39 where the AKS-74u fires 5.45x39. It's not a submachine gun either. A submachine fires pistol bullets. The AKS-74U does not fire pistol bullet, it fires rifles bullets.
Yeah, you got a point. Most warfare is more close quarters like urban/guerilla style these days. The M14 is more of a DMR for mid-long range sniping and the AK is an assault rifle in a close combat setting. In a tight building setting, it's gonna hard as fuck to turn corners with a long ass rifle even though it packs a hell of a punch.
@Diraphe Short barreled .308's are very loud and have lots of muzzle blast. All that unburnt powder going down the muzzle is what causes that. They are meant for 22 inch barrels.
@esh325 True but thats the same problem most SBRs have, the Stoner AR needed a major gas-system retool to keep its timing in shorter barrels. If a flash hider doesnt do the job on the muzzle flash then put a suppressor on it and its eliminated completely :D Sound would be cut slightly as well.
Besides Springfield has addressed some of those concerns in the 16" socom with its new gas system.
Id say the biggest concern with SBRs is the loss in velocity though that is a problem all designs share
@Diraphe It really depends on the power of the round. A 16 inch barrel with a 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 is nothing much in terms of recoil, but when you get to like 10 inch barrels then the recoil and blast is a lot more pronounced. In .308, you'll really feel the blast and recoil out of a 16 inch barrel. I haven't fired the Socom.
M14 requires a new stock for fully automatic fire. The center of rotation is too low from the butt to the trigger assembly, so recoil does not drive strait backwards into the shoulder but jumps the barrel upward.
@centurion180ad They actually made a squad version with a straight stock and the prototype called the T-25 which had a very straight stock. One problem they noted was that having a really straight stock pulls your head higher off the ground making you more exposed to bullets.
@esh325 I've seen marines on video with a new composite stock that has a strait butt. They've made their choice.
If you are standing, sitting or in an improved position there can be no head problem. A slightly elevated head for a prone shooter on a range or bald terrain is traded for being able to hit the God damn target with a an entire burst. Most terrain is not open so infantry do a pop-up thing anyway, or rest their weapon up on their packs or a terrain feature to see targets.
wow, whoever wrote that m4 doesn't slow someone down should really not talk until using it, I have firsthand experience with the M4, and tho it has a smaller round, once a 5.56 round penetrates the body it flutters around until making an exit wound, often bigger than the entrance hole. It causes quite a bit of damage and is very reliable. This is coming from someone deployed to Iraq, the M4 is smarter in tactical situations, I do like the M14, and trust it to be a great weapon as well.
@ekim04tteckaz I don't take lightly any caliber as all can kill.With that said,some calibers kill better then others.Never been shot at before,but I think the 762x51 has a better reputation for lethality then the5.56x45. Paul Howe,who was a Veteran of BHDrecalls the 5.56x45 being ineffective against Somalis where the 7.62x51 was much more effective in killing.David Petraeus actually survived a chest shot of a M16,so if the round did what it was suppose to do, he shouldn't have made it to General
Most soldiers in Iraq and Affganistan say they would prefer the M14 to the M16 or M4 because it is a more reliable weapon mechanicly when full of dust, as everthing is over there, and it reliably kills the enemy, unlike the M16/M4, which frequently fails to even slow with a chest shot when an enemy is charging all hopped up on religious ferver and heroin.
@TheFrontiersmn What you said was correct until "frequently fails". It does not "frequently fail" at all, just because there's been a case where it dident stop 4 or 5 people, does not mean every time someone is shot by a m16/m4 they never go down. The m16/m14 survey that you received was eather fake, or on some type of category such as reliability or something. Now no one in the right mind would take a m14 over a m4 in door to door fighting..which is what iraq mostly is. Sorry if i was a jerk.
@rockyson990 The perfect squad carries primarily M4/M16s (for room-to-room searches), at least one scoped M14 (to take out the haji sniper on a rooftop), and a Beneli M4 .12 gauge shotgun for blowing doors of their hinges and turning hostiles into chunks of meat and pink mist. In close quarters, the M4 is a beast: lightweight, maneuverable with 30 rounds in a clip. The dependable M14 can reach out and kill from 900 yards with a big, fat mean bullet. The shotgun? That's just American awesomeness.
@crazy4sian Running up and down those ladders, tripping over kneeknockers... takes its toll. Besides, had a great job offer on the outside and wouldn't have to spend 6 months at a time away from the family. Good luck on making it to E-7. I have a feeling its going to get a lot harder now that its a given the military will be downsized again... might even make the Carter cuts look good in comparison.
@crazy4sian E-7 is Chief in the Navy. E-9 is Master Chief. Good luck. It can't be easy. Hope the Air Force doesn't suffer the same cuts. You'll probably lose the F-22.
@crazy4sian I would disagree. The F-35 is trying to be too many things at the same time -- it does none of them well. The Marines want it to be S/TOL, the Navy wants a ground attack/fleet interceptor, and god knows what the AF wants with it. The F-22 is all new air superiority technology, so that's bound to be expensive as they work out the bugs. But I've seen nothing the navalized version of the F-35 does any better than the F/A-18F and its a worse interceptor than the retired F-14D.
@BloodofPatriots And the F-22 was created for a mission that never happened. It was created to make a point, but it never got to prove it. Now, I'm not in the Navy, but from what I heard, the Tomcat was among the greatest interceptors ever built, and its retirement was due to sky-high maintenance cost and hours. The JSF is probably going to be a multirole aircraft to augment the other branches rather than replace anything. I'm personally against it, but we'll see what happens.
@crazy4sian Once the engines were swapped out and it became the F-14D, the Tomcat required no more maintenance hours than the F/A-18. What made the Tomcat the greatest interceptor in naval history was its avionics and the fire-and-forget 100-mile range Mach 5 Phoenix missile (it carried 6). Two F-14Ds could take out an entire squadron of enemy aircraft even before they were in range of the other aircrafts' weapons. And she was beautiful to watch cat-launch into a night sky.
@BloodofPatriots I'm pretty sure the aging F-14's did cost more to run then spanking brand new Super Hornets.
Don't forget they were old school analog planes, nothing digital about them. It was a BIG jet too.... And them swept wings required much more maintenance then you can imagine.
And yes, it was a brilliant interceptor, and not a bad Bomber/ground support plane either.(understatement).
And yes, it's a crying shame they shitcanned the best looking plane ever..
@svandamme76 Engines produce the most cost when operating military aircraft. With its new engines in its final upgrade, the turn-around for a F-14 was on par with that of the newer F/A-18. Computers could have been replaced, but the avionics package (especially airborne radar) is the edge the F-14 had over all over past and present aircraft. The loss of the Phoenix will be a costly one for some poor US Navy captain and his crew in the future. We have nothing to match the Sunburn or Exocet.
M14 should be way higher than no10 I'm thinking no1
M16503 3 days ago
I have a question for Americans and/or anyone who understands the imperial measurement system:
NATO standard is to use meteoric, as a former NATO soldier I understand well meteoric calibers. However the equivalent imperial calibers make no sense to me.
Case in point; 30-06 & .308 are both 7.62mm, why the different numbers if they are the same caliber?
Then .303 to the logic of the number .308 implies the .303 is smaller then .308, however .303 is 7.7mm, which is bigger. How can this be?
JimmyG228 1 week ago
@JimmyG228 The .303 is named from the distance between the bore and the lands, which is from the the black powder age. While the .308 refer to the initial bullet diameter prior to the bullet being fired from the chamber
KiresKnight 1 week ago
@KiresKnight .303 British (not black powder) rounds does refer to the caliber in relation to the diameter of the bullet from what I know.
What about the 30-06 & .308 both being 7.62mm, makes no sense to me the numbers would be different for the same caliber. On NATO cartridge charts the 30-06 is 7.62x63mm & the .308 is 7.62x51mm. Thus infantry proofing the difference in cartridge.
JimmyG228 1 week ago
@JimmyG228 .30-06 is not a "modern" imperial measurement--it specifically means "30 caliber, adopted in 1906." There was also a .30-03, adopted in 1903. They are all technically .308 caliber bullets as far as I know, they were just named using a different naming convention, before there was a modern, standardized way to refer to ammunition.
wcropp1 1 hour ago
@wcropp1 As far as .303 British goes, I really have no idea. I do know that some European countries (Russia specifically) measure bore diameter from the lands, rather than the grooves, or a rifled barrel.
wcropp1 1 hour ago
@wcropp1 I believe I got that backwards--many European countries measure from the *grooves* rather than the lands. Either way, their projectiles are slightly larger (if I remember correctly, they may be smaller) on paper because of the way they measure them. Regardless, there are inconsistencies between different countries depending upon how they measure bore diameter.
wcropp1 1 hour ago
ilove how it says its effective reanger is only 503 yards thats less than the m16
tanker882 3 weeks ago
Eeghead at 1:35
TheVollnoob 3 weeks ago
My weapon of choice in the future zombie apocalypse.....along with a Colt Python
99thJediWarrior 1 month ago
I would love to hold M14 again. Are they legal in California?
bigdalton123 1 month ago
@bigdalton123 Sadly no, at least that's what the tag said when I bought mine!
thegreatpumpkinshot 3 weeks ago
@bigdalton123 Springfield sells CA legal versions, they have a different flash hider I believe as well as a bullet button.
echoside190 1 week ago
by far the best rifle i have ever fired... with iron sights its highly accurate... sure its heavy and its not one of these new rifles with everything but the kitchen sink hanging off it that grown men running around in multicam costumes playing special forces tend to favor... but this old boy from alabama will stick to this made in the usa ass kicker
bbqandfirearms 1 month ago
Does anyone know where to find a Cheap M-14? like less then 1000?
imjaketete1 1 month ago
@imjaketete1 Don't, I paid 1300 for mine, that's about the limit for a good one. Polytemp makes one, It's chinese, I give dirty looks to anyone who owns one of them, it's not american and the receiver is very difficult to make, you pay for the lack of quality, save up the extra 3-400 and get yourself a good one!
thegreatpumpkinshot 3 weeks ago
The guy at 1:29 look's like humpty dumpty hahaha.
TheHEROESdontRUN 1 month ago
i don't need no teenage queen
i just want my m14
bman4099 1 month ago 12
M14: The best assault rifle ever created! Why? Because it was made like an M1 Garand. Powerful, reliable, accurate, heavy, long barreled, this rifle had it all. Only the AK-47 can compare.
georgesouv 1 month ago in playlist Όπλα
@georgesouv except a pistol grip lol
jmn6000 1 month ago
@jmn6000 Who fucks a pistol grip? We are talking about classic design here. I never like pistol grips.
georgesouv 1 month ago
@georgesouv The recoil comes right back at you with a pistol grip, not up. and nobody wants barrel climb
jmn6000 1 month ago
@jmn6000 That may be true but a classic rifle design is still sexier to me.
georgesouv 1 month ago
@georgesouv Yup. The Son of the M14 rifle.
99thJediWarrior 3 weeks ago
@99thJediWarrior I mean M1 Garand
99thJediWarrior 3 weeks ago
not sure but i believe the huge scope at the end everyone's talking about was one of the early night vision designs.
explosionsrool 2 months ago
When I was in the USN, back in '86, I had never shot a rifle in my life. Not even a .22LR. The carrier I was on was nuclear, and so we had a special detail called NRST (nuclear reactor security team) that was a back up team in case the Marines were tied up with something else. I was on the team. Our primary wepon was the M-14. So we all had to qualify with it. Remember, I had never shot anything larger than a pellet gun. Wow. I loved it! I was a very good shot. Enough that I got a medal.
smacman68 2 months ago
25 people have airsoft m14s
KingCommando32 2 months ago
@KingCommando32 i have legos xD
GunMaker91 1 month ago
I think that guy at the end needed a bigger scope! He must be the point dexter of the military.
dirtyhose01 2 months ago
how is service length low? its been in service sence the 50's
melgibsonsballs 2 months ago
@melgibsonsballs true, but how much has it truly been utilized since it was replaced in the early Vietnam years? Not very much. The score has more to do with how long it was "actively" used, not just how long its been kept in the arsenal.
szelle63 1 month ago
is m14 m1carbine? its look the same
March3720Darkness 2 months ago
have you heard about G3 stupid producer? Oh it's not a US rifle so it should not be listed in top 10
syalcin123 2 months ago
@syalcin123 are you fucking stupid? alot of non-american rifles are listed. its just the g3 doesnt need to be put in because its not ass good as any of the other rifles
the ak47 got number one so just shut the fuck up
4everUSNavy 2 months ago
big ass scope
Macbruber 2 months ago
It is prefect! I never struggled with this rifle, was glad to have it over the M-16 and I worked the mountains as a 0311 and Forward Observer tramping up and down steep terrain. Even now as a militiaman I use the M1A/M-14 as it will out fight a AK47 or a M16, AR15 which I also own, but M1A/M14 is my main offensive weapon.
rattlesnakemilitia 2 months ago
"This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine."
Wintermute01001 2 months ago
lol, it said effective range was 503 yards. Thats a load of BS. You can easily hit 600- 800 with that gun.
DJSpindoctor2010 2 months ago
@DJSpindoctor2010 It probably meant with iron sights. And your visibility in combat for a target probably might be even less then 500 yards.
esh325 2 months ago
is gun acurate i know its got some balls and tuffness
surfs1man 2 months ago
2:49 Look at the size of that scope!
99thJediWarrior 2 months ago
if u say this merit the 10th place, you suck
Mrboombastic266 3 months ago
M-14 - the world's greatest weapon for infrantrymen who want precision at range- full battle rifle
zlinn71 3 months ago
jesus christ! he has the fucking hubble telescope on that thing 2:47
stix471 3 months ago
Comment removed
stix471 3 months ago
i want it.
bigsandwch 3 months ago
Did you see the gargantuant scope at the end?
ben191209 3 months ago 16
@ben191209 I think the scope you're talking about in the video was an early version of those night vision scopes we have today.
nolexakabigfliplol 3 months ago
@ben191209 Old school night vision.
SpiritOffAdventure22 1 month ago
@ben191209 Thats sure to put the hurt on some dirty motherfuckers
imjaketete1 1 month ago
@ben191209 Straight outta team fortress 2
TheCopelandJ 4 weeks ago
@ben191209 miss with that thing and you are a super noob!
itachiniko 3 weeks ago
@ben191209 I believe that is an early night vision scope.
wonkehcheetah1138 2 weeks ago
IMO this shouldve been higher up
jdizzy01 3 months ago
my favorite
KKEtokommasoulae 3 months ago
m14, a rifleman's rifle, back in the days when the military did not teach area supression except to machinegun teams and instead taught marksmanship... ah the elegance of efficeincy
snogs11 3 months ago
@snogs11 You forgot about submachineguns. It's simply just a change in tactics. They did many battlefield reports in Korea that showed that a fully automatic rifle was useful to the infantryman.
esh325 3 months ago
I think the Mosin Nagant should be in 10th place instead of M14. They say the M14 was around for 40 years, Mosin Nagant has been around for over 100 years and even served in Chechnya, Russian snipers used them. IF they wanted a rifle that has been around for a while then Mosin Nagant definitely beats the M14.
Unit987654321 3 months ago
@Unit987654321 right the m14 should have been in atleast 5th place
4everUSNavy 2 months ago
@4everUSNavy No, the M14 shouldn't even be here.
Unit987654321 2 months ago
@Unit987654321 yes it damn well should. infact it should be plased higher on the lsit. you and your 5rn bult action commmunist gun can fuck off.
ill keep my 20rnd semi/full auto weapon of pure kick ass
4everUSNavy 2 months ago
@4everUSNavy Well if they wanted to put in a DMR, they can certainly put in the SVD instead of the M14, I mean look at the top gun, the AK 47, the most reliable gun in the world, SVD has the exact same operation, it's cheap and easily mass produced. Also, I don't even see a single HK weapon on here, HK also makes really good guns. I mean I don't even know why they put Springfield 03, it's an American remake of the Kar 98. Also, M1 Garand, it may have been the first sucsessful semi auto rifle...
Unit987654321 2 months ago
@4everUSNavy but what about the SVT 40? Or the G41? Or the G43? They said a major problem for the M1 was that when the last round fired the entire clip flew out, it also holds 8 rounds while those other Semi auto rifles hold 10 rounds and they don't have a problem when the gun runs out of ammo. You must understand it's an American show they want to put more of their guns on there just so that people cheer on America but there are far better weapons than the ones listed here.
Unit987654321 2 months ago
@Unit987654321
they had the FN FAL, STYRE AUG, KAR98k, Lee enfield and AK47 on this show
and the m14 hold 20rnds not 10
4everUSNavy 2 months ago
@4everUSNavy Okay, but the M14 is a DMR, just like the SVD, the magazine capacity is not a critical feature of DMR's. The M14 was designed to be a battle rifle which was later added a scope and became a DMR, while the SVD was designed to be a DMR from the start. But that is not the reason they put it on the list, they put it on the list because it served long (40 years). But the Mosin Nagant has been around for over a century. Another DMR is the PSG 1, why isn't that on the list?
Unit987654321 2 months ago
@Unit987654321 Because the PSG 1 isn't reliable or durable enough for military service, its accuracy is frankly average, and its only significance is an anachronistic appearance in Black Ops and popular with a few police services.
SSgt24thMEU 2 months ago
@Unit987654321 i don't believe it does, the bolt was sticky, and had a very long muzzle flash
planb1532190 2 months ago
@planb1532190 I think that the muzzle flash was the problem with the carbines M38 and M44. I own a mosin nagant M91/30 and I see no problem with the bolt, I think it's a matter or oiling it up.
Unit987654321 2 months ago
@m14Lover308 WWII had more emphasis on fixed lines, rather than long range patrols. 16 rounds of .30/06 weighs a pound. 160 rounds is 10 lbs, so with a 9 lb rifle, and 176 rounds ammo, you have 20 lbs. (a good ref: Soldiers Load and the Mobility of a Nation by SLA Marshall).
DonMeaker 4 months ago
@DonMeaker Soldiers are probably more encumbered by weight today then they were back then. The load bearing equipment a soldier has to carry has kept going up.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 A key element is body armor. It reduces fear, but increases fatigue. In Desert/Mountain, throw in water!!! All the more reason to cut down on the weight of the rifle/ammunition when you can.About 1/3 of body weight is the most you can carry on the march. In combat you want to carry about 20 lbs less.
DonMeaker 4 months ago
Everyoe here keeps bitching about Ak's and shit here, I feel like a video gamer in a sports bar.
youronlinesniper 4 months ago in playlist Top Ten Rifles
Hits with lots of energy. Goes through sandbags, trees and still kills targets. Very accurate, powerful, reliable. "Soldiers in Vietnam struggled with the weight of the weapon," Never heard a Marine say that. They loved them. .308 rounds are large and very powerful, .223 rounds are "weak" (as long as it's not a piercing-type and on soft targets). M14 is a personal favorite.
mrbobyub 4 months ago
@mrbobyub One of the big reasons why the M14 was put out of service in Vietnam, was because the AK had greater firepower and was a more effective close range firearm. I agree though that the .223 is not powerful enough. I think the 7.62x51 is too powerful though. A round in between like the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 grendel would have been ideal.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 I'm pretty sure that the the AKs firing the 7.62x39 at 600rpm with a muzzle velocity of 715 m/s (2,346 ft/s) did not have greater firepower than the M-14s firing the 7.62x51 at 700-750rpm with a muzzle velocity of 850 m/s (2,800 ft/s). I'm also pretty sure that the AKs (especially the Type 56 which was wider produced than the original Russian AKs) suffered from extreme muzzle shake. What people know as the AK-47 is a piece of shit, the one that is actually reliable is the AKM.
wikieditspam 4 months ago
@wikieditspam I can give you a link to an army report where they said the AK-47 was a better rifle then the M14. For close range fighting, the better ballistics of the 7.62x51 largely goes to waste. It's overpowered. The M14 might have had higher rate of fire, but it held 10 less rounds in the magazine and had poor controlobility in fully automatic, where the AK was better. Actually, the original AK-47 wasn't a piece of shit at all.
esh325 4 months ago
@wikieditspam The only reason the AKM replaced the AK-47 was because the AKM was cheaper to produce,lighter, and slightly better full auto characteristics because of the slant shaped compensator. The AK-47 was just as reliable as the AKM.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 The advantage of the 5.56x45 is from the ability to carry more ammunition. That means you can shoot at known and suspected enemy locations. By contrast with the M-14, bullets are 20 to the pound, and you can't afford to shoot at anything that isn't a real target. Result. With the M-16 you could fire first. With the M-14 you had to wait and only fire when you saw something move, or saw a muzzle flash. the M-16 is plenty lethal within 200 meters (round fragments) if you hit someone
DonMeaker 4 months ago
@DonMeaker There's nothing stopping you from carrying the same amount of 7.62x51 ammo as 5.56x45, it's just heavier. You'll have to ditch your other equipment though to still remain mobile. A lot of reports about the round suggest that it's not lethal enough. In one report by an army doctor, he said the M193 round had a tendency to leave the body without fragmenting or yawing, and would hit like a .22 LR. The M885 is even more hampered.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 Yes, there is something stopping you from carrying the same number of 7.62 rounds as 5.56 rounds: the weight. No round is lethal enough, this side of the 8 in howitzer. T.Roosevelt wrote of the effects of 7mm Mauser on US soldiers: If hit in brain, spine or heart, you died. If hit anywhere else, you recovered, and quickly. Lavoiser was guillotined, and didn't die for 16 seconds- but couldn't reach his weapons rather before that.
DonMeaker 4 months ago
@DonMeaker If you think the type of round doesn't matter, does that mean you would choose a .22 LR over a .45 acp? All rounds can kill. It's also a fact that some kill better then others though. While there's no magical one shot stop round, larger caliber rifles tend to do better. Paul Howe who fought in Mogadishu, recalls how the 5.56x45 was not very effective against the Somolians, on the other hand, he found the 7.62x51 to be much more effective.
esh325 4 months ago 10
@esh325 Of course the type of round matters. Some rounds do more damage. Other rounds permit more mobility, and more rounds to be carried. I rather like the 12.7x99, but schlepping the rounds is a pain. Each has advantages. I think the 5.56x45 has a good package of capabilities, which is why people converted from 7.62X51 and 7.62x39 to 5.56x45 and 5.54x39. Swedes even converted from 6.5 to 5.56. China is converting from 7.62x39 to 6.8, but they are a 'conservative' people.
DonMeaker 4 months ago
@DonMeaker The western countries converted to 5.56x45 because the US mandated to the NATO that they had to. The Swedes converted to the 7.62x51 also which was arguebally inferior and offered no advantage over the 6.5x55. They did it simply because of NATO. I think the 5.45x39 is some what of an improvement over the 5.56x45. The 5.8mm by the Chinese might be also.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 Or rather, various countries recognized that in many situations the first round fired means the first round hit. More rounds carried means more rounds fired. Suppression fire was used in WWI, but you are just as suppressed with a 5.56 going over you as you would be with a 7.62 or 8mm. Keeping a an enemy head down with fire permits friendly maneuver.
DonMeaker 4 months ago
@DonMeaker Read the NATO standardization agreement.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 So various countries recognized the tactical advantages as I stated, and agreed to a standardization agreement. The US had so much influence that the Belgian design was selected.
DonMeaker 4 months ago
@DonMeaker One thing to think about, is that a lot of the countries that signed it never saw much of any combat , so the idea of a lightweight,low recoiling cartridge, seems ideal for training in peace time. The 4.85mm bullet the British came up with outperformed the 5.56x45, but they chose the M885 largely because the US already was using the 5.56x45.
esh325 4 months ago
@DonMeaker The use actually considered replacing the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 with the 6mm saw in the 1970's. Politics and NATO stopped this from happening.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 I remember the SAW considered the 6mm, but there was some institutional memory of what the world was like with .45ACP SMGs .30 Carbine, and .30/06, as well as .50BMG in the same units. The 5.56 doesn't guarantee that an elephant will drop with one shot, but few things do. I rather liked the M193 effect on flesh, with the cannelure to enhance fragmentation. Course I like the 7.62X51, the 7.62X54R and the3 .30/06. My all time favorite: 7mm BR for which I have a pistol.
DonMeaker 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@esh325 So various countries recognized the tactical advantages as I stated, and agreed to a standardization agreement. The US had so much influence that the Belgian design was selected.
DonMeaker 4 months ago
@esh325 Nope, the 5.45 has terrible ballistics, even worse than the 5.56. I hear the 5.8 has a tendency to overpenetrate. The 5.56 isn't perfect, but it's the best small caliber intermediate round there is. Stepping up, the 6.8 and 6.5 are superior to all, the 6.8 has the most stopping power, but the 6.5 is accurate to 1000 yards.
SSgt24thMEU 2 months ago
@SSgt24thMEU The 5.56 doesn't have terrible ballistics, nor does the 5.45x39. They are almost neck and neck.
esh325 2 months ago
@esh325 spitzer bullets all yaw when they hit flesh. Rifling only stabilizes in air, flesh is 1000x as dense. center of lift is at the 25% point, and center of mass is behind that, so the round yaws (or pitches) quickly. If round doesn't break, it exits tail end first. M193 within 200m fragments. M855 does too. German 7.62mm rounds have thin steel jacket, and fragment and flatten, US 7.62s have thick bronze jacket, and act like a solid. "Lethal enough" is an unattainable fiction.
DonMeaker 4 months ago
@DonMeaker Yes, they will. M885 out of a M4 barrel won't fragment more then 60m's I believe. In the report, I have, even with a 20 inch barrel firing the M193, they reported the bullets leaving the torso even before yawing or fragmenting. So at close range it can't be always relied upon to fragment.
esh325 4 months ago
Ah Doc Eggman so we meat (get it) again
Unl0gisch 4 months ago
2:35 did that guy just shot a shark? how cruel...
shobin05 4 months ago
@shobin05 no you idiot
4everUSNavy 2 months ago
brianbp4f how is it originally dutch? where did you hear this?
brucetravers16 5 months ago
the m14 is originally a dutch fucking weapon!
brianbp4f 5 months ago
@brianbp4f Close. It was based on the Belgian FN FAL.
UghhGetATan 4 months ago
@brianbp4f no it wasnt. how was it dutch when it was based off the m1 garand.
4everUSNavy 2 months ago
7.62mm full metal jacket
koensailing 5 months ago
that gun should be number 1 i want to shoot that gun soo fucking bad
TheFryer18 5 months ago
Ok. We've got the M14 and the FAL, but no mention of the G3. It's only one of the most prolific 7.62 NATO battle rifles around along with the FAL. Seems like a bit of an oversight...
RaderizDorret 5 months ago
@RaderizDorret The G3 has horrible ergonomics just saying.
Gunfan762 4 months ago
@Gunfan762 For me the ergos are fine. I also shoot it better than an M1A or FAL. Truth be told, I don't think the ergos are any worse than an AK family rifle, all things considered. As for other factors, the G3 is easily one of the most realiable weapons ever created, is more than accurate enough for a battle rifle, and has been used in almost as many countries as the FAL while the M14 was the shortest-lived main rifle in US military history (next post)
RaderizDorret 4 months ago
@Gunfan762 The M14 is also only seeing use in a specialized role and is steadily being replaced by rifles like the LMT MWS, Knights SR-25 family, and the like. Not saying the M14 is a bad rifle, but it's constantly overrated.
RaderizDorret 4 months ago
@RaderizDorret I'll agree that there are better o pitons for sniping than the M14.
Gunfan762 4 months ago
@RaderizDorret I haven't seen it anywhere mentioned that they are doing that.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 Last I heard the Army is in the process of adopting the M110 and the Navy's been using the Mk11 Mod 0 for some time. Both are variants of the SR-25.
RaderizDorret 4 months ago
i wonder how many cod fags watch this
iceberg931 5 months ago
he won the marine corp eating contest.
7x57mmMauser 5 months ago 38
@7x57mmMauser His weight is a tactical advantage. Upon capture, the enemy would not be able to implement starvation as a means of torture.
sk8tafrnk 4 months ago
@7x57mmMauser He also won the cone head contest. Whoever has a head that looks the most like a cone, wins.
EnigmaHood 3 months ago
@7x57mmMauser dont fuck with him. he maybe fat but can kick the shit out your stupid ass
4everUSNavy 2 months ago
@4everUSNavy says the gay navy seaman. . .run to your lover on your silver steed navy semen. . .protect his honor . . . thats just too funny.
7x57mmMauser 2 months ago
@7x57mmMauser that just proved you have not served a day in the armed forces. Thank you for proving how dumb you are
4everUSNavy 2 months ago
@4everUSNavy So the navy fags are ignorant too? I thought you fucks were just cocksuckers for the corp.
7x57mmMauser 2 months ago
@7x57mmMauser how is that when we have been around longer than theMarine corps and we give the Marines their pay check? go ahead look at a a Marine pay check and you will see "Department of the Navy" written all over it
4everUSNavy 2 months ago
love how people in old movies shoot without aiming! rambo style :P
rawatashwin666 5 months ago
lol 2:46 "That's not a scope, THIS is a scope"
R31K88 5 months ago
bottom line 7.62 x 51 - 5.56
sreddy117 5 months ago
Dear Santa...
SimT94 5 months ago
m14 is better than an ak it shooting a more powerful round has high rof is more acurate and has a longer range
persicionairsoftteam 5 months ago
@persicionairsoftteam Do you need that power and longer range though? The M14 itself and its ammo is heavier then the AK. It's also longer. The stock does not fold like the AK does. Field stripping and cleaning is easier ton the AK.
esh325 5 months ago
@esh325 The ak does not have a Folding stock unless u modify the gun. You also can make the m14 a m14 EBR.
MrSwimmingmango 5 months ago
@MrSwimmingmango AKS-47. They are a lot more abundant then an 1000$ EBR rail system.
esh325 5 months ago
@esh325 Aks47 is the same as the Ak 74 u. so that's a submachine gun. EBR is a body or Enhanced Battle Rifle
MrSwimmingmango 5 months ago
@MrSwimmingmango AKS-47 is not the same at all. The AKS-47 fires 7.62x39 where the AKS-74u fires 5.45x39. It's not a submachine gun either. A submachine fires pistol bullets. The AKS-74U does not fire pistol bullet, it fires rifles bullets.
esh325 5 months ago 24
@esh325 THERE IS NO AKS-47! Get your facts straight! It's an AKS, without the fucking '-47'!
Yfr28 5 months ago
@Yfr28 I know there isn't. Even if it's wrong, it's just so commonly used by people.
esh325 5 months ago
@esh325 Easy to say that Aks-47 is Carbine.
jakkree2029 4 months ago
@esh325 Thank you friend, you have answered many of my questions.
SuperSmashyfication 3 months ago
@esh325
Yeah, you got a point. Most warfare is more close quarters like urban/guerilla style these days. The M14 is more of a DMR for mid-long range sniping and the AK is an assault rifle in a close combat setting. In a tight building setting, it's gonna hard as fuck to turn corners with a long ass rifle even though it packs a hell of a punch.
f0ngtasticXD 5 months ago
@f0ngtasticXD That's why they make them with 18" and 16" barrels now ^.^
Diraphe 5 months ago in playlist funny
@Diraphe Short barreled .308's are very loud and have lots of muzzle blast. All that unburnt powder going down the muzzle is what causes that. They are meant for 22 inch barrels.
esh325 5 months ago
@esh325 True but thats the same problem most SBRs have, the Stoner AR needed a major gas-system retool to keep its timing in shorter barrels. If a flash hider doesnt do the job on the muzzle flash then put a suppressor on it and its eliminated completely :D Sound would be cut slightly as well.
Besides Springfield has addressed some of those concerns in the 16" socom with its new gas system.
Id say the biggest concern with SBRs is the loss in velocity though that is a problem all designs share
Diraphe 5 months ago
@Diraphe It really depends on the power of the round. A 16 inch barrel with a 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 is nothing much in terms of recoil, but when you get to like 10 inch barrels then the recoil and blast is a lot more pronounced. In .308, you'll really feel the blast and recoil out of a 16 inch barrel. I haven't fired the Socom.
esh325 5 months ago
M14 requires a new stock for fully automatic fire. The center of rotation is too low from the butt to the trigger assembly, so recoil does not drive strait backwards into the shoulder but jumps the barrel upward.
centurion180ad 5 months ago
@centurion180ad They actually made a squad version with a straight stock and the prototype called the T-25 which had a very straight stock. One problem they noted was that having a really straight stock pulls your head higher off the ground making you more exposed to bullets.
esh325 5 months ago
@esh325 I've seen marines on video with a new composite stock that has a strait butt. They've made their choice.
If you are standing, sitting or in an improved position there can be no head problem. A slightly elevated head for a prone shooter on a range or bald terrain is traded for being able to hit the God damn target with a an entire burst. Most terrain is not open so infantry do a pop-up thing anyway, or rest their weapon up on their packs or a terrain feature to see targets.
centurion180ad 5 months ago
2:17 - the dictor says about specialized sniper rifle for S.E.A.L.s, but we can see one of the S.E.A.L.s using... soviet SVD.
...nuff said.
KrauYT 5 months ago
@KrauYT seals can use any weapon they want...
danthman114 5 months ago
@KrauYT How do you know it's a Navy Seal?
esh325 5 months ago
i like the M14 when fully auto....
pustakaaristoteles 6 months ago
the m14 is my favorite rifle!!!!!!!! oh yeah it's long because it's a rifle or sniper dude that's why it's long
thehockeyhawk20 6 months ago
wow, whoever wrote that m4 doesn't slow someone down should really not talk until using it, I have firsthand experience with the M4, and tho it has a smaller round, once a 5.56 round penetrates the body it flutters around until making an exit wound, often bigger than the entrance hole. It causes quite a bit of damage and is very reliable. This is coming from someone deployed to Iraq, the M4 is smarter in tactical situations, I do like the M14, and trust it to be a great weapon as well.
ekim04tteckaz 6 months ago
@ekim04tteckaz I don't take lightly any caliber as all can kill.With that said,some calibers kill better then others.Never been shot at before,but I think the 762x51 has a better reputation for lethality then the5.56x45. Paul Howe,who was a Veteran of BHDrecalls the 5.56x45 being ineffective against Somalis where the 7.62x51 was much more effective in killing.David Petraeus actually survived a chest shot of a M16,so if the round did what it was suppose to do, he shouldn't have made it to General
esh325 6 months ago
Most soldiers in Iraq and Affganistan say they would prefer the M14 to the M16 or M4 because it is a more reliable weapon mechanicly when full of dust, as everthing is over there, and it reliably kills the enemy, unlike the M16/M4, which frequently fails to even slow with a chest shot when an enemy is charging all hopped up on religious ferver and heroin.
TheFrontiersmn 6 months ago
@TheFrontiersmn Complete moron.
rockyson990 6 months ago
@rockyson990 no need to be a jerk, just because you disagree. I got my info from the results of a survey given to troops in Iraq and Affganistan.
TheFrontiersmn 6 months ago
@TheFrontiersmn What you said was correct until "frequently fails". It does not "frequently fail" at all, just because there's been a case where it dident stop 4 or 5 people, does not mean every time someone is shot by a m16/m4 they never go down. The m16/m14 survey that you received was eather fake, or on some type of category such as reliability or something. Now no one in the right mind would take a m14 over a m4 in door to door fighting..which is what iraq mostly is. Sorry if i was a jerk.
rockyson990 6 months ago
@rockyson990 The perfect squad carries primarily M4/M16s (for room-to-room searches), at least one scoped M14 (to take out the haji sniper on a rooftop), and a Beneli M4 .12 gauge shotgun for blowing doors of their hinges and turning hostiles into chunks of meat and pink mist. In close quarters, the M4 is a beast: lightweight, maneuverable with 30 rounds in a clip. The dependable M14 can reach out and kill from 900 yards with a big, fat mean bullet. The shotgun? That's just American awesomeness.
BloodofPatriots 5 months ago
@BloodofPatriots Did you learn all of that by playing video games?
crazy4sian 5 months ago in playlist Guns
@crazy4sian I wish. War is a lot more fun without real bullets.
BloodofPatriots 5 months ago
@BloodofPatriots What branch were you in?
crazy4sian 5 months ago
@crazy4sian USN.
BloodofPatriots 5 months ago
@BloodofPatriots What was/is your NEC?
crazy4sian 5 months ago
@crazy4sian GM-0812
BloodofPatriots 5 months ago
@BloodofPatriots Awesome. Are you active? How long were you in?
crazy4sian 5 months ago
@crazy4sian 8 years total... not anymore. Old bones couldn't take it.
BloodofPatriots 5 months ago
@BloodofPatriots Sucks, huh? I'm going to see if I can make it to Chief.
crazy4sian 5 months ago
@crazy4sian Running up and down those ladders, tripping over kneeknockers... takes its toll. Besides, had a great job offer on the outside and wouldn't have to spend 6 months at a time away from the family. Good luck on making it to E-7. I have a feeling its going to get a lot harder now that its a given the military will be downsized again... might even make the Carter cuts look good in comparison.
BloodofPatriots 5 months ago
@BloodofPatriots I'm in the Air Force. I'm shooting for E-9.
crazy4sian 5 months ago
@crazy4sian E-7 is Chief in the Navy. E-9 is Master Chief. Good luck. It can't be easy. Hope the Air Force doesn't suffer the same cuts. You'll probably lose the F-22.
BloodofPatriots 5 months ago
@BloodofPatriots I'm almost certain of it. The JSF is looking pretty sweet, and the F-22 is just an expensive show plane.
crazy4sian 5 months ago
@crazy4sian I would disagree. The F-35 is trying to be too many things at the same time -- it does none of them well. The Marines want it to be S/TOL, the Navy wants a ground attack/fleet interceptor, and god knows what the AF wants with it. The F-22 is all new air superiority technology, so that's bound to be expensive as they work out the bugs. But I've seen nothing the navalized version of the F-35 does any better than the F/A-18F and its a worse interceptor than the retired F-14D.
BloodofPatriots 5 months ago
@BloodofPatriots And the F-22 was created for a mission that never happened. It was created to make a point, but it never got to prove it. Now, I'm not in the Navy, but from what I heard, the Tomcat was among the greatest interceptors ever built, and its retirement was due to sky-high maintenance cost and hours. The JSF is probably going to be a multirole aircraft to augment the other branches rather than replace anything. I'm personally against it, but we'll see what happens.
crazy4sian 5 months ago
@crazy4sian Once the engines were swapped out and it became the F-14D, the Tomcat required no more maintenance hours than the F/A-18. What made the Tomcat the greatest interceptor in naval history was its avionics and the fire-and-forget 100-mile range Mach 5 Phoenix missile (it carried 6). Two F-14Ds could take out an entire squadron of enemy aircraft even before they were in range of the other aircrafts' weapons. And she was beautiful to watch cat-launch into a night sky.
BloodofPatriots 5 months ago
@BloodofPatriots I'm pretty sure the aging F-14's did cost more to run then spanking brand new Super Hornets.
Don't forget they were old school analog planes, nothing digital about them. It was a BIG jet too.... And them swept wings required much more maintenance then you can imagine.
And yes, it was a brilliant interceptor, and not a bad Bomber/ground support plane either.(understatement).
And yes, it's a crying shame they shitcanned the best looking plane ever..
svandamme76 5 months ago
@svandamme76 Engines produce the most cost when operating military aircraft. With its new engines in its final upgrade, the turn-around for a F-14 was on par with that of the newer F/A-18. Computers could have been replaced, but the avionics package (especially airborne radar) is the edge the F-14 had over all over past and present aircraft. The loss of the Phoenix will be a costly one for some poor US Navy captain and his crew in the future. We have nothing to match the Sunburn or Exocet.
BloodofPatriots 5 months ago
If i was on a stealth mission i would deffenatly use m14 but if i was in close range combat i would use m16 or even m4 for that matter
JonKitchenisnotaguy 6 months ago
@gtk4158a whoa the .22 lr is not the 5.56
BlackOut5n 6 months ago
@gtk4158a Actually...the 5.56 is .223...which is very different from your run of the mill .22 round.
tlucentefl 6 months ago