best semi auto rifle ever built?
- Thread starter trigga
- Start date
- Status
Tim the student
Member
This is high road? Seriously?
Vern Humphrey
Member
I trained on the Garand in 1962 (the last AIT company at Fort Polk to do so) and at OCS. In Viet Nam on my first tour as an Adviser to Viet Namese Infantry, I was issued an M2 Carbine which got wrapped around a tree, and I bummed a Garand off the unit I was advising and carried that from then on.
As a company commander on my second tour, I bullied my battalion commander into getting me two M14 sniper rifles (this was before the M21 was standardized.) I had one man in the company who had been through sniper school, so he got one of them and I got the other.
The M1's great weakness was the en block clip -- that made it overly complicated, hard to manufacture, and difficult to mount a scope or starlight scope. Yes, it was a great battle rifle, but the M14 was better.
As a company commander on my second tour, I bullied my battalion commander into getting me two M14 sniper rifles (this was before the M21 was standardized.) I had one man in the company who had been through sniper school, so he got one of them and I got the other.
The M1's great weakness was the en block clip -- that made it overly complicated, hard to manufacture, and difficult to mount a scope or starlight scope. Yes, it was a great battle rifle, but the M14 was better.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
"Best"? For what purpose? Within what military doctrine of battle tactics?
What works in one might not be "the deal" for a different doctrine.
For instance: Pretty much beginning in the Vietnam era, the idea was to be able to carry a lot of ammo, and control one's environment within some 200 meters while using the primary weapon, the radio, to call in support from air or artillery. The M16 worked pretty good at that.
The Russian battle doctrine, OTOH, was for massed assault by tanks, with infantry support. The old WW II-era slam-bang standup and clobber against fixed positions. The infantry would go into action at close range. So, the AK47 sort of critter fit the doctrine.
For their design, the doctrinal purposes, then, the two rifles were equal.
To me, then, when you look at an M1 or FAL or whatever, the main question has to do with the intended purpose at the time it was designed.
Not all "improvements" work as intended. For instance, the M14 was basically an M1 with a box magazine and select-fire capability. It was discovered that the rifle was too lightweight for controllable full-auto fire. Same for the German G3 or the FAL. Doesn't mean they're "bad"; just that once again there is no "One size fits all". Still, it's pretty obvious that for a battle rifle, the box magazine is the way to go.
Consider purpose and military doctrine within one's judgement of good/better/best.
What works in one might not be "the deal" for a different doctrine.
For instance: Pretty much beginning in the Vietnam era, the idea was to be able to carry a lot of ammo, and control one's environment within some 200 meters while using the primary weapon, the radio, to call in support from air or artillery. The M16 worked pretty good at that.
The Russian battle doctrine, OTOH, was for massed assault by tanks, with infantry support. The old WW II-era slam-bang standup and clobber against fixed positions. The infantry would go into action at close range. So, the AK47 sort of critter fit the doctrine.
For their design, the doctrinal purposes, then, the two rifles were equal.
To me, then, when you look at an M1 or FAL or whatever, the main question has to do with the intended purpose at the time it was designed.
Not all "improvements" work as intended. For instance, the M14 was basically an M1 with a box magazine and select-fire capability. It was discovered that the rifle was too lightweight for controllable full-auto fire. Same for the German G3 or the FAL. Doesn't mean they're "bad"; just that once again there is no "One size fits all". Still, it's pretty obvious that for a battle rifle, the box magazine is the way to go.
Consider purpose and military doctrine within one's judgement of good/better/best.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Full auto fire in any shoulder weapon, including the M16 and the AK 47 is tactically worthless.
The M14 was originally supposed to have a sister weapon, the M15 to replace the BAR. The M15 was never fielded, and many automatic rifle versions of the M14 were tried, including the M14E2. None of them panned out.
1KPerDay
Member
garand for me... nothing cooler.
You'd be wrong. MacArthur was the one who refused to give the order to allow his B17s to hit previously designated Japanese targets. While waiting for the go order from Mac, the 17s were finally ordered off the ground so they wouldn't be sitting targets. After MacArthur finally authorized the attack hours later, the B17s were landed, and were on the ground being fueled and armed when the Japanese roared in. This was just one of the situations we studied in my American Military History course. (No-one knew about this until well after the fact, because virtually all of the surviving involved parties were captured by the Japanese. By the time the refusal to follow orders was discovered, Mac was already the "Hero of the Pacific".
It has been suggested the reason for the delay was the many years of collaboration between the MacArthur family and the Philippines, and the hope that, if U.S. forces based in the Philippines did not become involved, that the Philippines might be able to stay out of the war.)H2O, the OBVIOUS answer was, that OF COURSE the accurized M14s the ODA had were "modernized and enhanced" (since you're not claiming glass bedding and such on the original M14...are you?). I'm sorry the obvious is lost on you.
Luv my 1897
Member
I agree, the M1A. My second would be an Armalite AR10T with free float barrel and flat top receiver.
Supertac45
Member
The Mini-14 isn't even worth talking about.
"Best" for rimfire plinking and hunting squirrels? Winchester 490 or Weatherby XXII (semi-auto version).
"Best" for an all-around defensive carbine under adverse conditions with little maintenance? Mini-14.
"Best" battle rifle? FN L1A1 / C1A1.
"Best" big game rifle? BAR.
"Best" for an all-around defensive carbine under adverse conditions with little maintenance? Mini-14.
"Best" battle rifle? FN L1A1 / C1A1.
"Best" big game rifle? BAR.
Hate to break it to you, but if China is ever a big enough threat and intel is strong enough that troop planes seem to be flying over the Pacific in the millions, we're going to have a press conference while nukes are dropped on China. Then we'll end up having the AF intercept every single plane.
That is, if we haven't deployed every single soldier we've got to the Middle East.
I think of the SAGE and SOPMOD stocks for the M14 as the "A4" version of the M14. It's loads more accurate, a bit heavier, and generally a better weapon then the A1 version.
The very best rifle in my eyes would be a SCAR/XCR/ACR type weapon in 7mm-08. In an 18 inch barrel, it'd be accurate, pretty deadly, fast, the ability to add things that make the rifle a pound heavier, the picatinny-mounted toaster, the automatic oven, the battery-powered green-laser, a shark, and a kitchen sink.
I just believe in having plenty o' rails, just in case I want to put on a light or bipod, possibly a battery pack, etc.
That is, if we haven't deployed every single soldier we've got to the Middle East.
I think of the SAGE and SOPMOD stocks for the M14 as the "A4" version of the M14. It's loads more accurate, a bit heavier, and generally a better weapon then the A1 version.
The very best rifle in my eyes would be a SCAR/XCR/ACR type weapon in 7mm-08. In an 18 inch barrel, it'd be accurate, pretty deadly, fast, the ability to add things that make the rifle a pound heavier, the picatinny-mounted toaster, the automatic oven, the battery-powered green-laser, a shark, and a kitchen sink.
I just believe in having plenty o' rails, just in case I want to put on a light or bipod, possibly a battery pack, etc.
"Best" can't be found in any one rifle. Prolly better served to say what 3 rifles are the best mix. If that, then maybe a CZ 452 Scout (.22LR), my trusty Armalite M4-ish thing and an M1A Scout. Now we're onto something right here. Might even throw in a no-frills Remington 870 for sh*ts and giggles.
To each his own, but it's not apparent how an M-14 is 'improved' by the addition of:
- a rail mounting system that is obviously too long for the rifle
- a heavy bipod
- a large scope in a non-matching finish
- a plastic stock with some sort of do-dad screwed to the right forearm
- a funny-looking cover (two-sided cheekpiece) on the rear of the stock
Hard to disagree. This guy makes it look easy, but not in my experience. Anyone remember the old C1A1Ds?
M14, but once i get to shoot a garand I might change my mind.
I feel that's part of the point. Obviously 16 year old draftees weren't gonna perform at that guy's level, but traditionalists take the view that a warrior works to be worthy of his weapon. That's why the best rifle ever made can be an "impractical" weapon. Even though its not worth a cent to a bloated superpower trying to mass-produce an army.
Also, WWII was the last symmetrical war we fought in. Nowadays we don't even meet other armies in the field. Mostly just air raids followed by years of police work. I think if the cold war had had any US-USSR battles, the M14 would have kept on rolling. Would you honestly want a 5.56 in a wide open battlefield against guys with .308's and level III vests?
I feel that's part of the point. Obviously 16 year old draftees weren't gonna perform at that guy's level, but traditionalists take the view that a warrior works to be worthy of his weapon. That's why the best rifle ever made can be an "impractical" weapon. Even though its not worth a cent to a bloated superpower trying to mass-produce an army.
Also, WWII was the last symmetrical war we fought in. Nowadays we don't even meet other armies in the field. Mostly just air raids followed by years of police work. I think if the cold war had had any US-USSR battles, the M14 would have kept on rolling. Would you honestly want a 5.56 in a wide open battlefield against guys with .308's and level III vests?
I don't know which "history books" you read. The MacArthurs were deeply connected to the Filipino ruling family, beginning with Arthur MacArthur. Douglas also took a secret $500,000 payoff from the Philippines, back when that was real money.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
Hard to say. Possibly Garand, as said before, it was designed as a semi from the ground up.
Sunray
Member
"...saying that the Ruger Mini 14 was "the best semi auto rifle ever built"..." He's nuts. It's an over priced, inaccurate, big kid's, toy. Reliable, but not worth the money Ruger wants for one. They seem to have fixed the accuracy issue with their Target model, but it isn't worth $1082 MSRP.
MTMilitiaman
Member
Okay, one at a time, in crayon:
It's not. The scope mounting rail is intentionally longer than the optic to allow Night Vision Devices, such as the PVS-14, to be mounted to the rifle in front of the objective bell of the optic.
On a scoped rifle designed as a DMR or sniper rifle intended for extended ranges, a bipod may be worth its weight. Bipods are mounted on a variety of weapons for this reason.
Again, considering the intent of the rifle, an optic is useful. As for the finish, you'll have to forgive them. I am sure matching your taste in aesthetic preference wasn't as high on their list as getting a functional optic mounted to the rifle and in the hands of the troops.
It's probably easily to direct you to Smith Enterprise's website for details on the stock and other internal modifications they make to the rifle. But the Picitanny rail on the right allows the user to mount infrared lasers and illuminaters like the PEQ-2 or a visible white light like a Surefire. These are combat multipliers that increase the soldier's ability to identify threats and engage targets quickly and accurately. For a long time, the primarily complaint with the M14 was its inability to accept these accessories.
Same reason you'd mount an aftermarket cheekpiece on any other rifle--a quick and economical way to achieve proper cheek weld for use with optics on rifles with stocks that lack integral cheek piece adjustment.
rocinante
Member
surely YOU jest.
Sure most here are gun enthusiast and are leaning toward the military battle rifles but the number of 22 rifles out there dwarfs all others and as demonstrated kill more game albeit small.
EVERYBODY owns a 22 and more often than not it is a 10/22.
- Status
