Considering the production problems and frequently falling behind production the M14 was often “ Yesterday’s Rifle Tomorrow!”

Shit ar10 is still tomorrow's rifle😂

It's like the Garand but worse

G3: one rifle to rule the wasteland

Least it’s a refreshing change from hearing the long line of seniors +’Nam vets putting it on a pedestal and making it sound like anything that isn’t an M14 in a wood stock and 3-9x optic is inferior for a “real man’s fighting rifle”.

It's just a symptom of the disdain for corruption.

You guys think that when Heather needs a laugh she yells out "The M-14 is a great weapon!"

it's great to see people who aren't afraid to say some truths about the M14

I love how he talks shit about a rifle like it insulted him personally.

I appreciate that!

Mr Kinman, we love your channel, but seeing you shout out other ones reminds us just why you’re the coolest!

The M14 is the A-10 of the battle rifle world. Looks cool. Sucks at its job & and we can't give them away. We send M14s to most new NATO countries as military aid. They usually get sent right back. Latvia gave theirs to Ukraine as soon as war were declared.

Pure sexyness.

beautiful does not win fights... it's a military rifle, both the HK, FN and the AR 10 where vastly superior. The armed forces went with a gun to spend less money, got almost what's a piece of crap. 6 years on service says it all. Production numbers also. Countries using it too. AR10 and HK G-3 based rifles are widely used today. Damn, even the HK G3 is still used today in countries like Sweden, Portugal, Mexico, South Africa, even if not as the first line rifle; and FAL is still used in Brazil where they lived longer than many M16's used by the Military Police like the Rio de Janeiro BOPE.

The M-14 with a fiber or polymer stock is absolutely just as good if not better than the FAL and the G3. People hate on them far too much. NONE OF THESE battle rifles are worth a darn in full auto. Reality check for everyone the FAL mags are trash and there were multiple patterns of the rifle and it is like a 6 MOA shooter which SUCKS. The G3 has great sights but terrible ergos and a bad trigger. The M-14 has excellent sights and great trigger and is a comfortable rifle to use ergonomically. They could have just upgraded the stocks from wood and it would have been just fine. Still is just fine. Now will ANY of the battle rifles keep up with intermediate cartridge assault rifles? NO. But we honestly need to get over the M-14 sucks thing because they honestly don’t suck. The US gov simply didn’t do right by the gun and warfare was changing too fast. It wasn’t the rifles fault.

For CQB I agree

That’s like saying I’m glad Hitler came to power because it led to the modern trade system. Just because a bad thing leads to a good outcome does not mean that bad thing was a good thing

Several of the UK special armed forces (SAS, SBS, Etc) had already 'seen the AR light' and been using that platform since the late 90s. They procured Canadian Diemaco C-8s, as did the Dutch, Denmark and Norway. Now the rest of the UK armed forces will be tossing their L85s and moving up to the KS-1. Absolutely a great move!

Yes!

Actually, maybe.

"Should have been" a ".260" caliber not far from 6.5mm calibers more prominent today. Softer recoil, less ammo weight, still has long range capability but I detest part brass, part polymer as this rounds are not reloadable for the rest of us

@@peoplehavetherights And this is why I love the comments section. So what do you think about this new 6.8x51 round? I’m no expert for sure, but I kind of wonder if we’re forgetting some of the things that led to the 5.56 in the first place?

I agree

Lead by Colonel Rene Studler

Great Britain: We did and then the US pressured us into ignoring those lessons.

The Barette BM-59 was what the M14 was supposed to be but properly executed.

Euh the FAL is still in use in quite a few countries.

@@Robin6512 where? Are you talking about some kind of a South American police unit or something?

​@@Robin6512Not in Europe its not. The Brits for instance have precisely zero L1A1s in service. They do however still have G3s in service because they still work and will take modern optics.

How much of that is due to the countries who bought them taking longer to replace it than those who bought the FAL? West Germany was was 10 years in replacing the G3 in service than the UK, Canada and Belgium were at replacing the FAL.

@@joeblow9657 definitely hard to say, but we know the people were in a much much bigger race to replace their FAL’s

Not having a LRBHO is a pretty bad negative though. That and the front heaviness isn't ideal

How were the sights on the C1? I know they had a weird disc sight format that seemed good as a concept but not necessarily in practice.

@@joeblow9657 The rear disc sight on the C1 allowed selecting apertures from 200-600yds. The were designed to be flipped down for protection when not in use. So if you were carrying your rifle at the sling arms for instance, they would be flipped down, which meant that you had to flip take the time to flip them up when unslinging your rifle for use. Also, they could be accidentally be flipped down without the user noticing, though this never happened to me that I can recall. We were the only country to uses these, and IMO, we would have been better off using the same sights as the other commonwealth countries. This being said, the rifle was accurate. My biggest beef with the C1 was that the body cover was designed to allow loading with a stripper clip if desired, which was WWI era thinking. So instead of having an ejection port only as big as it needed to be on the front side of the rifle, we had a BIG opening at the breech end which could allow all sorts of foreign matter into the breech area. This was just plain stupid.

That last point is a good point but that only works if you're willing to actually follow through.

It did, swelled and cracked.

We have 5 or 6 ar10 patterns..

@@PureCountryof91 2-3 of them are pretty rare and I almost never see parts for them. But yeah, fair point. Easier to just wait for a sale and either buy the complete upper and lower separately or just spend the little extra and buy the complete rifle. Then you've got it under warranty. I save builds for AR15's these days

Chris does love his Bula M14 though :) Really is a great target rifle, and so good looking. I say this as an AR-10 fanboy.

@@coltonowens2742 That Bula looks like a sweet shooter! I've only ever shot the "cheap" Springfield M1A's and even those that I've shot are amazing fun & had extremely accurate irons. I'd never go without an AR10 as they're just so useful for so many purposes, but I've really been wanting an M1 Garand or M1A. Every time I save up to buy one/extra mags (or en bloc's) and a case of ball, I end up with a revolver I don't need or something else ridiculous... So many guns, so little time (and money) lol

@@mfallen6894 I didn't have much of a desire for a full power gas gun, then I shot an m1 Garand and m14 back to back. I started saving for an AR-10 the second I got home from that shooting trip. I obsess over my AR-10 even more. Yeah, the M14 and M1 Garand are outdated as hell for a combat rifle, but holy shit they are so much fun to shoot.

Huh I have a pre ban national match thats a tack driver with nm sights.

@@sr-5568 I tried everything and couldn’t get it. Even a McMillan stock bedded and pillared I had one model below the national match both times. I checked the scopes, lapped the rings, even had a better reloader and shooter than me try it. Couldn’t break the code. It was frustrating as hell. If yours was pre ban I wonder if you had better usgi parts

USAF uses the M14 or 1903 for ceremonies or when presenting the colors.

@@WeencieRantsWe also use M1's, at least we did back in '21

The AR10 needed to be fully developed. It was put in at the ass end of the program. ArmaLite President ignored Stoner and went with the light weight sleeved barrel rather than conventional rifle barrel. Stoner rushed to provide proper barrel. Also, ordnance used non standard rejected ammo which caused many of those broken parts. The test the AR10 went through was much more severe. That rejected hot ammo r we oils have destroyed the other two rifles. There is more to this story dude.

They better not wake up, because what your saying only exists in their dreams! LOL

@miketeeveedub Sonny, they've all gone to bed but they will come at you hard about 2 hours before sunup. When they are sitting in the rockers in front of Cracker Barrel waiting for the doors to open. 😆 LOL.

​@@SmallArmsSolutions Chris, no laughing from you. Your not far from being right there with me. 😮

@@CharlesRushing-ck2qmNothing to do with age, it's a mentality.

You will see this very soon

My case for .264 USA I have some uneducated opinions. Since everyone is entitled to my opinion, here goes. .264 LICC is a beefed-up version of .264 USA, with an increased rim diameter (from .441 to .473) and increased chamber pressure. The original .264 USA is arguably a stretched 6.5 Grendel. IMO the .264 USA is the ideal round for marksman rifles and ‘true’ GPMGs. 5.56 is too little and 7.62 is too much for those weapons. Rounds like the 6.5 CM are fantastic precision rounds but they are barrel burners. Not so much of an issue for marksman rifles but not ideal for MGs. 5.56 and 7.62 are known to be very forgiving with regards to barrel life. I think .264 USA would fall into that category. .264 LICC not so much. It would seem to me to be too hot. I think 5.56 is an adequate round for ‘assault’ rifles. Anything more is too heavy. Observing what soldiers of different armies took out over the years in the sandbox, there seemed to be no consensus on what was ‘best’. Sections/squads with issued 5.56 MGs would often add a 7.62 MG from higher up, but never relinquished their 5.56 MGs. You’d see British sections go out on patrol with 5.56 Minimis (eventually referred to by some as the noise maker, and recently retired because it was decided that that was all it was good for), 5.56 L86 LSWs, 7.62 sniper rifles (used by rifle units after their snipers got newer 8.59 rifles), 40mm UGLs, 7.62 GPMGs, M72s and Javelins. That often left only the section commander with a standard rifle. If everyone carries a support weapon, then who are they supporting? Firepower is great, but not all ‘firepower’ is effective. And you have to carry it. The .264 USA is smaller, lighter and softer recoiling than 7.62 for nearly the same performance. I would call that a win for grunts who have to drag that shit around with them. How many gunners carrying a MAG58/M240 complained about the round being too feeble? Contrast that with how many complained about the weight. I think the buzz word ‘overmatch’ is leading us in the wrong direction. .264 USA (not LICC) should replace 7.62, not 5.56. 5.56 for individual weapons. 6.5 USA for marksman rifles and GPMGs. 8.59 (.338) LM or NM for sniper rifles and HMGs. The NGSW 6.8x51mm? Yeah, nah. Unless it would prove a good alternative to 8.59 LM or NM. P.S. I remember reading something about a USMC platoon that carried copious amount of 5.56 every time they went on patrol in Afghanistan. Every time they got in a firefight they would run out of ammo. Until the platoon leader remembered his training and the concept of fire control (orders). He re-educated his platoon. From then on, they would go out with four mags each, and never run out. I wish I could find the article…

@@kiwigrunt330 Finding that article would be pretty cool. I know some trainers teach reduced ammo loadouts for sake of weight savings. Reid Henrichs out of Harrogate, TN (a former Marine) comes to mind. His opinion is that 3 to 4 magazines are perfectly adequate, but he also doesn't teach mag dumping at area targets or general directions as is seen in Ukraine. I'd like to think this is what happens with a hastily assembled conscript force.

Dude, it's aluminum. All manufacturing nations were using plenty of different grades of aluminum in the construction of aircraft & many other things. It wasn't foreign in manufacturing. Eugene Stoner took his experience & knowledge working in the aircraft industry & applied it to firearms manufacturing. Armalite was itself owned by Fairchild, so working with aluminum, & other light weight, high strength materials was an every day affair for them.

No. Most countries adopted the FAL as the Americans insisted upon adopting the M14 in 7.62x51 which forced everyone else in NATO or NATO aligned nations to adopt a 7.62 rifle as well. The first to market being the FAL. You did this - not the Europeans. The Finns saw sense and ignored the US all together. The G3 was far from a stand in rifle and it was better than the FAL by a country mile.

@@zoiders dawg the FAL was going to be chambered in a full power rifle round regardless if 7.62x51 was adopted or not. the .280 british despite internet claims of being an intermediate round is still a full power rifle round its essentially 6.5 creedmoor before 6.5 creedmoor. the british wanted 1000 meter point target capabilities the same as the Americans and French. the other contender was 7.5 french which is ballistically the same as 7.62X51.

@@zoiders as for the G3, its hardly the best rifle of NATO, the rifle was only adopted by the German's, the Norse countries, and some of the batlic countries. there were later adopters in the 70's and 80's with the roach countries such as Turkey, Pakatan, and Iran but that's because HK would give a license to pretty much anyone were as FN was far more stingy on license agreements. the G3 compared to the FAL is actually quite the downgrade. the FAL has fully adjustable gas system to tune the rifle to climate and ammunition as well as a last round bolt hold open and better ergonomics. the G3 requires essentially compound leverage to even function and manipulate.

​@@nemisous83No it was not. The US forced the adoption of 7.62. You did it. Not Europe.

​​@@nemisous83The G3 system was only one iteration of the Hk platform and it can be produced to chamber anything between 9mm and 7.62. You are talking out of your backside if you think it's lower quality than the FAL just because of your racism toward some nations that licence produced it.

@DraganB52. I didn't know steel fnfal mags had become scarce? They used to be readily available. ( 2005 ish) I assume you are looking for metric mags. Inch pattern were always harder to find. Have you tried DSA? Numerich's Gun Parts or Sarco Gun Parts?

@@CharlesRushing-ck2qm yes I did no luck unless you like plastic magazines that are not reliable so we’re just going to hold onto the rifle till they’re available steal magazines. Thank you.

@DraganB52 I was curious and checked Sarco and Numerich's also. Shocked, they didn't have any. In the early 2000s (2000- 2010) fal mags were everywhere. Rock River even produced a .308 AR that utilized Inch Pattern Fal mags. Be patient, you will find some.

The AR10 would have gone through a development process to get it ready for issue.

I can’t say. The charging hand in the carrying handle was much harder to use. Actually, the original design was an enclosed charging handle. Dirt and mud could not get in it

Actually no. An assault rifle has a defamation with the key point intermediate caliber.

M14 was in full production in military arsenals. If adopted, the AR10 would be put in same mass production and would have been less expensive to produce than the M-14 and it would be easier and faster to produce.

That $225 per unit price tag is what Portugal paid for their production run of 4,000 AR-10s, the price might have come down if quantities were larger. But, (and you should know this) the smaller, less material consuming AR-15s cost the US Army $122 apiece, still more than the M14s, and 2) Winchester, Harrington & Richardson, and TRW were/are not military arsenals. And whether or not it could be produced faster is debatable, M14 production was funding limited to 3,000 rifles per month, but could have reached as high as 15,000 per month, given full funding. M16 production between 1964 and 1968 averaged 13,000 per month.

I think we still would have ended up with the M16. We needed an assault rifle in Vietnam, not a full power battle rifle. The FAL most certainly would have been better than the M14 but would still have had the same fate. This is my opinion of course.

They never sold any rifle that was ever select fire. List rifles were the M1 Garand and M1 carbine. Probably the last rifles you will ever see on the commercial market.

@@SmallArmsSolutions Damn that NFA!

Absolutely!

There is a piston. I’m is the back of the bolt. The expansion chamber is created between the back of the bolt and back of the carrier. The “Piston” would be the bolt. The gas pushes the carrier rearward and the cam pin unlocks the bolt as it rotates.

@SmallArmsSolutions okay ya I didn't wrap my head around considering the bolt as the piston. I just imagined a piston being the moving part in between the BCG and gas block. Is there such thing as a true direct impingement? Or what would be considered closest to direct impingement?

In AR10 videos I do go into that.

Not modular other than stock. Not good for mounting force multipliers.

Interesting, my PTR kicks like a mule. One of my only rifle that give me a black and blue shoulder

@@SmallArmsSolutions That’s my point. I definitely believe you Chris. Just not sure why all the differences other I guess it can be subjective.

The only PTR i shot felt completely fine, it pushed a lot more than a intermediate caliber gun but I didn't feel like it was beating me up at all I could have shot it extensively. I actually liked it enough to want to buy one later on. I wonder if peoples anatomy might have an impact on it or something. For reference Shooting about 5-10 rounds of 12 gauge buck will make my shoulder hurt so I am not exactly Scott from Kentucky Ballistics here.

@@watariovids1645 I put 160 rounds thru mine in a session one time and never even thought about it’s recoil. But I’m the same way, 8 rounds of 12 gauge 00 buck has me content to stop there lol.

I’ve fired the g3 on full auto and its not that bad

Agreed. Nothing free about this country these days