What if NATO decided to adopt the M14 and the M1911A1 in order to standardize weaponry?
- Thread starter HistoryGunsFreedom1776
- Start date
Deleted member 1487
5.56 is not an intermediate cartridge. It's too powerful to be in the category for it's caliber.
Not sure what you're getting at here.
How many were even offered the M14? Plus the FAL conquered the market before the M14 was even available in numbers to the US military. By what standard is the FAL a superior design?
L1a1 is not a select fire version of the FN-FAL. It is a Self-Loading Rifle (SLR). You obviously fail to understand the differences between it and the FN-FAL.
Cuirassier
Banned
You obviously fail to understand that the SLR is the FAL's semi auto only version.
Have you ever been trained properly on the L1a1? I doubt it. I am well aware that the L1a1 is the semi-auto version of the FN-FAL. There are though, significant other differences. It has a non-reciprocating charging handle. It has different sights. It has a different flash-hider, it has a different bayonet, apart from just firing semi-automatically. It is also manufactured to imperial measurements, rather than metric ones. I have spent several thousand hours instructing on the L1a1 and the L2a1. I have spent several thousand hours on the range. I do know the differences.
? Does calibre matter is "intermediate" not just that its between "rifle" (ie 30cal standard WWI/WWII rifle) and pistol (9mm/45 etc out of SMG) in energy/recoil terms?
As aforementioned, what Inrange TV used in the test was a commercial M1A and not a USGI M14.
Due to law, the receiver isn't exactly military specifications, it's cast instead of forged
It also so I wonder if they use grease on the action as well?
m-14 in desert conditions
www.m14forum.com
Anyway, speaking of reliability of the M14, there are these two videos being upheld by critics of the M14 as evidence about why the rifle stinks.
Torture Test: The Mud Test - Guns and Ammo
Our torture team literally crawls through the mud with a Springfield M1A to see if it becomes a "stick in the mud" or a firearm you can count on no matter the conditions it's exposed to.www.gunsandammo.com
The problem however is that these were produced by the commercial firm Springfield Armory, Inc. , not the long shuttered except in a museum capacity Springfield Armory as this video also by Gun Jesus explains:
Here are the two reasons as to why :
1) Even though the commercial firm initially did use surplus USGI components in initial production of M1As, these dried up around 2003 and it didn't help that the DOD was actually repurchasing the surplus parts
So all we know for sure is that its a M1A, not when it was produced.
2) Even if it was built with even a hint of USGI surplus parts, the barrel and receiver group of the rifle is not built exactly to United States military specifications, especially in the case of the receiver due to the Hughes Amendment and the fact that the receiver is cast instead of forged to boot.
Now would an actual M14 do better in the sand and mud?
Maybe, maybe not but most sources I have read attests to the reliability in different environments and conditions with the rifles accepted into service, including those from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Therefore, even though it is highly unlikely, it would've been better to use an actual TRW produced M14 as issued to the troops or a later production Winchester or H&R after they passed inspection.
Hell, it would've been nice for the U.S. Department of Defense to have conducted a study about reliability after the production issues faced by Winchester and H&R as detailed in the Take Two post.
A better comparison would be testing a TRW M14 against a L1A1 produced by Enfield, allow the best of the best upheld by their respective adherents to see exactly how durable they are.
The day, regrettably, is again unlikely and it is only speculative base on the information from over sixty years of publications.
Is the traditional "intermediate" label not separate from calibre? I have never heard of 556 being called a "full powered battle rifle cartridge"?
Is it not normally just broken down into,
Full powered battle rifle cartridges - 30-06, 7.62NATO, 303, 7.62x54R, etc... (traditional rifle rounds)
Intermediate rifle cartridges a mix of 7.9K, 7.62x39, 5.56, 5.45 etc.... (sufficiently small you can fire full auto from shoulder semi controllably)
SMGs cartridges 9, 45,....etc (pistol rounds)
Is that not more just cost savings and does it actually make much difference?
To be honest, I have read arguments both ways in regards to it with one side claiming cast is not as durable as forged and more susceptible to having a catastrophic failure while the other view is that due to recent advancements, cast is just as strong but for less cost.
But it's a moot point in regards to the M14s that were accepted into service by the United States military as all of the receivers are forged.
Are they not anyway mostly moving to AR10 (or really scaled back up AR15 now) based systems as they are better?
The M110 malfunctioned at a rate higher than the M14 EBR per a source I read and I will have to find it as I was prepared for comparing the M14 to the FAL but the reason why the M110 was adopted in the first place was because of parts for the M14 were drying up (in fact General Dynamics iirc were contracted to manufacture a linited run of spare parts for the M14) and training commonality with the M16/M4 platform.
I seem to recall that the AR10 or perhaps scaled up AR15 platform seems to have been adopted by some former FAL users for their "battle rifle" or "designated marksman rifle" or what ever one wants to call military issue 7.62x51 rifles that are at least semi auto if not full auto these days..
US version of the FAL? Would it have been good who had made it? although it has nothing to do because the US did not test the M16 in the Philippines as a test before introducing it in Vietnam it could help since they had done a training or something like that
Can we give up on the 'intermediate' taxonomy? It is a term of speech not a technical specification. Rifle cartridge intended for [indeterminate]shorter ranges with less recoil than [indeterminate]powerful ones that can reach many hundreds of metres with [indeterminate]effective fire. 'Intermediate' is used as loosely as 'musket shot' was in the past (which was about 300 yards FWIW). There is no correct definition to argue is the true Word of (insert preferred deity here). 'Assault' rifles were intended to be used in semi automatic fire until one actually is assaulting an enemy position whereon automatic fire is to be used and hence a weaker cartridge is chosen which allows automatic fire from the shoulder with control. Thus the AK47. It then got taken over by US politicians intent on shocking the public into supporting their views on gun control or, cynically, to sound as if they they cared and were taking action.
You know what, while it will take some time, just for the hell of it, maybe I should make a timeline for this thread based on the premise here and @Blue cat might have been on to something.
en.wikipedia.org
Canada was the first nation to adopt the FAL but what if they didn't?
Plus as a bonus, the NAACO is a big bore handgun and the predecessor to .45 Winchester Magnum
NAACO Brigadier - Wikipedia
Canada was the first nation to adopt the FAL but what if they didn't?
Plus as a bonus, the NAACO is a big bore handgun and the predecessor to .45 Winchester Magnum
Last edited: