Haha I like your animations... In my opinion ar-15 gets the job done good, however m14 gets it done better... Although I have never shot an m1a or any variants of the m14 I have shot and ar-15 and that is just a beatiful weapon...
As others have mentioned the M14 serves our country to this day and in many different configurations... MK14 Mod 0, MK14 Mod 1, MK14 Mod 2, MK14 Mod 0 type SEI , TACOM M14EBR-R and M39 EMR to name a few.
Great job ! Long live the M-14. If you want an effective CQB M14 based rifle you need look no further than the M1A Socomm. Yes, it is heavier than an M4 but it shoots 7.62X51. So, even an "obsolete weapon system" can evolve and be made better. Heck, the Seals love their M14 based EBR's.
@n6ea With a short barreled .308, you'll have a lot of recoil and muzzle blast, all that unburnt powder coming out of the barrel. .308 is better for 21-22 inch barrels. I've used the M1A (civilian version) and honestly there are much better rifles today and there were even better rifles back when the M14 was around.
@esh325 Like what, FN FAL or HK G3? I have a bit of experience with most 7.62x51 weapon systems including current AR-10 or AR-308 platforms. I still prefer the M14. Oh, and socomm, scout or 22" M14 all have the same recoil. You may get a bit more muzzle rise out of a socomm but felt recoil is the same. I've shot them all. I stand by my statement. " If you want an effective CQB M14 based rifle you need look no further than the M1A Socomm."
@n6ea The FAL , yes. I've used one and I'd say it's a better rifle then the M1A. Easier to maintain and field strip. Gas regulator. Pistol grip. Ergonomic safety and bolt release. Never used the G3 can't say. I've used the AR10 also and I think that's a better rifle then the M1A. The M1A is harder to mount a scope to compared to a AR10. I'd have a hard time believing a rifle that weighs less and has a shorter barrel is going to have the same recoil.
@esh325 I'm telling you from a lot of M14 experience, there is no noticeable difference in recoil. The M14 did have a problem with mounting an optic which has been overcome with some nicely, albeit expensive, designs for mounts including Smith, Sadlak etc. or with a chassis like the Sage EBR or Troy. Optic systems weren't much of a consideration when the garand was born, so yes, the M14 had to play catch up. Maintaining an M14 was never much of a problem. No tools to remove FCG, op rod and bolt.
@n6ea The M14 is still less efficient for mounting scopes then other rifles.The open top design bolt design of the M14 with the stripper clip guide is just an outdated design and not as friendly for mounting scopes. A lot of times you have to remove the stripper clip guide just to get a mount on the M14. Even the AK is easier to get a scope on. A M14 with a Chassis will probably weigh more then an AR10 with the rails already in place.
@esh325 or M4 or whatever but my comment was specifically addressing the M14 weapon system and it's variants. Of course there are better CQB weapons. Just as there are better precision systems. In my opinion the M14 can do many things fairly well. Sort of a jack of all rifles. I get that you don't care for them. I see an M14 as a refined, beautiful and classy lady while the rifles you mention remind me of a biker chick... ;-) Sometimes a biker chick maybe whats needed... LOL
@n6ea While the M1A is by no means a bad rifle,. it was outdated as soon as it was adopted. It's caliber is the only reason why it's still around today. And even then we probably could have avoided the need for 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 rifles if we adopted a more powerful intermediate caliber like the British proposed after WW2, the .280 British which could do the job of both.
Try hitting a running target at 500-874 yrds with iron sights..... The reason all countries switched because no GI engages targets at that range... even if they can clearly see them.
Both but the truth remains no US soldier should die of Greed. Are government knew the m16 failed miserably during field testing .But for the love of MONEY they knew it was a piece of junk and let US soldiers die . All for greed
Define assault ? If some one punches you in the face you were just assaulted right ? Well if you get shot by my m-14 you were just assaulted by a m-14 simple . We need to look at combat tactics the m16 was ment to be a retreat rifle get in wast all that crap ammo and kill nothing the m-14 was ment to hold the line in combat and assault the enemy with the 308
How can you call the m-14 out dated ? When it did everything it was suppose to do. Long range , short range , assault range , combat range , sniper range , hand to hand range. The only down fall of the m-14 was to many homosexuals were joining the military and complaints of it was to heavy and they wanted the m-16 because it was lite and fast to stick up there asses. How much money did colt make and there lobbyist make based upon greed and our dead solders?
@robbase54 It was outdated mostly because it wasn't an assault rifle. Yeah, you could do close range with it, but it's a bit too long. The soldier with a lighter rifle is going to be more mobile in combat.
one thing i would add to that as a failure is that they swapped weapons in the middle of a war. Soliders/Marines became familiar with the M14 during their training and even more so in battle. When they swapped it for the M16, everything was different. they had to relearn how to use a new weapon system that wasnt as good.
The 5.56x45 did not tumble in the air, it tumbled when it hit a person though. Very informal video, you got most of your facts right. The M14 is still issued today in Afghanistan to make up for the M16's and M4's short comings at long distance. The M14 isn't a bad rifle, but I think it was severely outdated and not the best rifle our soldiers could have had.
@esh325 yea thanks man. yea, that was a screw up on the narration, i meant to say wobbled a little bit through the air. and the M14 was definitly obsolite by like 1973, but im debating for those 2 or 3 years when the M16 was a complete nightmare to soldiers. but thanks for the input.
@skaterplayer99 M16 isn't that bad! The heavier round used in those modern day far out gun the AK's round from the 20 inches M16 barrel. M14 is a good marksman, but the rifle was just too much on disadvantages.
The only nitpick I have is that the audio could be a bit better, but that's really nitpicking. Otherwise, this is awesome. You're gonna give me a run for my money when it comes time for district.
good job man next time don't slam so hard on the m16 they re reasons why its still inservice
bob101579 1 week ago
This is one of the best videos on youtube I had ever seen by a teenager and I totally agree what he says.
barzee524 1 month ago
Nice Job! Hope you got an A!
igotjuice007 1 month ago
Well put together video! Thanks for the history lesson!
DocShay 2 months ago
Haha I like your animations... In my opinion ar-15 gets the job done good, however m14 gets it done better... Although I have never shot an m1a or any variants of the m14 I have shot and ar-15 and that is just a beatiful weapon...
mikyjackson1 3 months ago
well done extremely well done! 5 out of 5 stars!
mrecholizard 3 months ago
As others have mentioned the M14 serves our country to this day and in many different configurations... MK14 Mod 0, MK14 Mod 1, MK14 Mod 2, MK14 Mod 0 type SEI , TACOM M14EBR-R and M39 EMR to name a few.
THEH2OMAN 5 months ago
@skaterplayer99 Outstanding young man, very well researched and delivered in a clear and concise manner. Thank you for sharing your labor with us
dougcarlton 5 months ago
Great job ! Long live the M-14. If you want an effective CQB M14 based rifle you need look no further than the M1A Socomm. Yes, it is heavier than an M4 but it shoots 7.62X51. So, even an "obsolete weapon system" can evolve and be made better. Heck, the Seals love their M14 based EBR's.
n6ea 5 months ago
@n6ea With a short barreled .308, you'll have a lot of recoil and muzzle blast, all that unburnt powder coming out of the barrel. .308 is better for 21-22 inch barrels. I've used the M1A (civilian version) and honestly there are much better rifles today and there were even better rifles back when the M14 was around.
esh325 5 months ago
@esh325 Like what, FN FAL or HK G3? I have a bit of experience with most 7.62x51 weapon systems including current AR-10 or AR-308 platforms. I still prefer the M14. Oh, and socomm, scout or 22" M14 all have the same recoil. You may get a bit more muzzle rise out of a socomm but felt recoil is the same. I've shot them all. I stand by my statement. " If you want an effective CQB M14 based rifle you need look no further than the M1A Socomm."
n6ea 5 months ago
@n6ea The FAL , yes. I've used one and I'd say it's a better rifle then the M1A. Easier to maintain and field strip. Gas regulator. Pistol grip. Ergonomic safety and bolt release. Never used the G3 can't say. I've used the AR10 also and I think that's a better rifle then the M1A. The M1A is harder to mount a scope to compared to a AR10. I'd have a hard time believing a rifle that weighs less and has a shorter barrel is going to have the same recoil.
esh325 5 months ago
@esh325 I'm telling you from a lot of M14 experience, there is no noticeable difference in recoil. The M14 did have a problem with mounting an optic which has been overcome with some nicely, albeit expensive, designs for mounts including Smith, Sadlak etc. or with a chassis like the Sage EBR or Troy. Optic systems weren't much of a consideration when the garand was born, so yes, the M14 had to play catch up. Maintaining an M14 was never much of a problem. No tools to remove FCG, op rod and bolt.
n6ea 5 months ago
@n6ea The M14 is still less efficient for mounting scopes then other rifles.The open top design bolt design of the M14 with the stripper clip guide is just an outdated design and not as friendly for mounting scopes. A lot of times you have to remove the stripper clip guide just to get a mount on the M14. Even the AK is easier to get a scope on. A M14 with a Chassis will probably weigh more then an AR10 with the rails already in place.
esh325 5 months ago
@n6ea I'd just take an AKM or AK-74 if I wanted an effective CQB rifle. Accurate enough for the job.
esh325 5 months ago
@esh325 or M4 or whatever but my comment was specifically addressing the M14 weapon system and it's variants. Of course there are better CQB weapons. Just as there are better precision systems. In my opinion the M14 can do many things fairly well. Sort of a jack of all rifles. I get that you don't care for them. I see an M14 as a refined, beautiful and classy lady while the rifles you mention remind me of a biker chick... ;-) Sometimes a biker chick maybe whats needed... LOL
n6ea 5 months ago
@n6ea The M14 is a beautiful rifle, no doubt, and has very pleasing shooting characteristics. It's just outdated.
esh325 5 months ago
@n6ea While the M1A is by no means a bad rifle,. it was outdated as soon as it was adopted. It's caliber is the only reason why it's still around today. And even then we probably could have avoided the need for 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 rifles if we adopted a more powerful intermediate caliber like the British proposed after WW2, the .280 British which could do the job of both.
esh325 5 months ago
@esh325 The caliber debate is a long and well fought battle that will never be solved to anyone's satisfaction, so I won't go there.
n6ea 5 months ago
@n6ea And that you need two tools to just take the piston off the M1A is a ridiculous design. There are better piston designs out there.
esh325 5 months ago
Try hitting a running target at 500-874 yrds with iron sights..... The reason all countries switched because no GI engages targets at that range... even if they can clearly see them.
1ohtaf1 5 months ago
@1ohtaf1 Exactly. At that distance fire support will be much more effective then any small arm.
esh325 5 months ago
Did anyone who played Black ops try to argue with you because you got about 95-99.9% of this right.
RedSoxfan107 6 months ago
M16 was and is a piece of shit
bnsaints 7 months ago
This was very good!!! Was this for school?
Fats2732 7 months ago
@Fats2732 yeah it was
skaterplayer99 7 months ago
Both but the truth remains no US soldier should die of Greed. Are government knew the m16 failed miserably during field testing .But for the love of MONEY they knew it was a piece of junk and let US soldiers die . All for greed
robbase54 7 months ago
At the end of the video the m16 wad really ment to be as a head stone and a place for a dead marines helmet
robbase54 7 months ago
Define assault ? If some one punches you in the face you were just assaulted right ? Well if you get shot by my m-14 you were just assaulted by a m-14 simple . We need to look at combat tactics the m16 was ment to be a retreat rifle get in wast all that crap ammo and kill nothing the m-14 was ment to hold the line in combat and assault the enemy with the 308
robbase54 7 months ago
@robbase54 Are you just trolling? Or are you serious?
esh325 7 months ago
How can you call the m-14 out dated ? When it did everything it was suppose to do. Long range , short range , assault range , combat range , sniper range , hand to hand range. The only down fall of the m-14 was to many homosexuals were joining the military and complaints of it was to heavy and they wanted the m-16 because it was lite and fast to stick up there asses. How much money did colt make and there lobbyist make based upon greed and our dead solders?
robbase54 8 months ago
@robbase54 It was outdated mostly because it wasn't an assault rifle. Yeah, you could do close range with it, but it's a bit too long. The soldier with a lighter rifle is going to be more mobile in combat.
esh325 8 months ago
one thing i would add to that as a failure is that they swapped weapons in the middle of a war. Soliders/Marines became familiar with the M14 during their training and even more so in battle. When they swapped it for the M16, everything was different. they had to relearn how to use a new weapon system that wasnt as good.
Ranger4321 9 months ago
@Ranger4321 They got the M16 so late, that most receive one in the '68 when battle field condition got harder.
1stMarineCapt 8 months ago
@1stMarineCapt very true. I tend to think that that weapons swap that late in the war had some to do with the loss of that war.
Ranger4321 8 months ago
@Ranger4321 The Marines didn't got killed by the rifle, but the Army did. But, we loss the war by the cause of heavy casualties.
1stMarineCapt 8 months ago
@Ranger4321 Hey, wait up: soldiers and Marines got training with the M14 before handed out M16 into combat! How can they get used to the rifle?
1stMarineCapt 8 months ago
What state are you from? Also, what division are you in (Senior or Junior)?
squirlysquirrel99 11 months ago
Texas, Junior
skaterplayer99 11 months ago
Very well done video, nice job!
fbho1 1 year ago
The 5.56x45 did not tumble in the air, it tumbled when it hit a person though. Very informal video, you got most of your facts right. The M14 is still issued today in Afghanistan to make up for the M16's and M4's short comings at long distance. The M14 isn't a bad rifle, but I think it was severely outdated and not the best rifle our soldiers could have had.
esh325 1 year ago
@esh325 yea thanks man. yea, that was a screw up on the narration, i meant to say wobbled a little bit through the air. and the M14 was definitly obsolite by like 1973, but im debating for those 2 or 3 years when the M16 was a complete nightmare to soldiers. but thanks for the input.
skaterplayer99 1 year ago
@skaterplayer99 M16 isn't that bad! The heavier round used in those modern day far out gun the AK's round from the 20 inches M16 barrel. M14 is a good marksman, but the rifle was just too much on disadvantages.
1stMarineCapt 8 months ago
The only nitpick I have is that the audio could be a bit better, but that's really nitpicking. Otherwise, this is awesome. You're gonna give me a run for my money when it comes time for district.
shenron204 1 year ago