I think this comes from some internet statement that the FN-FAL should have been the 7.62 nato gun that the US adopted.

maybe or maybe not is the FN-FAL a easier to produce more modular gun yes but we had no difficulty manufacturing plenty of M14s

is the FAL a good rifle sure it has it's place

that doesn't make the M14 a bad rifle both can be good rifles , this idea that for one to be good the other must suck is childish nonsense.

as I understand it they compared very similar in performance to each other but the M14 did better in arctic trials , since at the time we were concerned with our cold war advisory the USSR cold weather conflict was a concern . when 2 rifles test very close it is often an outer limit that sets them apart.

having never met anyone who disliked the M14 they carried in service , It certainly was a very good rifle.
seeing many of them still competing in high power competition and doing very well It certainly still is a good rifle.

Trained with the M14 and used the M16A1 extensively.

Give me the 14 every time !

We were young once.... Note the tailored uniforms.

As I recall, in 1970 no one liked M16. I figured at the time that some politician had financial interests in the pot. Remembering all the M16 hatred from those years has made it hard for me to understand the modern fascination with AR15.
Nothing bad about the M14 except the down sized ammunition, the choice of the supply command. I'll always be an '06 fan. Like The Beav said kill them far away.

I'm by no means and expert and personally I love the rifles in the Garand platform family, but I would hazard a guess that it came down to cost. I would bet the M-16 was a cheaper rifle to produce and the ammo was cheaper. I've never served (thank you to all that have) but it seems that a lot of military choices come down to price (at least that's the way my brother explains it). However, there must be something about the Stoner platform that has some benefits, most of the fanboy rifle and cartridges die out unless they have something that is actually an improvement (I. E. the Super Short Mag craze).

I think the 308 can do anything the 06 can. I have both now. Got a 308 after the service and shooting the M14.

30-06 M2 ball 150gr .308 bullet at 2750fps vs 308/7.62x51 149gr M80 ball 2735 fps

the difference seems insignificant , 10% more rounds for the same weight with such similar performance approximately a 1 inch difference in drop at 500 yards

30-06 could have been loaded hotter it has the case volume for it but the op rod in the M1 couldn't take it so it was brought down to the 2750 fps level.


as to the m16A1 , I have to wonder had only the original tested powder been used , only the original un-lacquered ammo and a proper cleaning kit been issued with every rifle and the rifles been cleaned in the same frequency as the m14 if the story wouldn't be very different today.

really this holds true for any weapons platform , clean regular and use only the ammunition that meets or exceeds the original reliability testing.

Never saw a cleaning kit for a 16

"white17" you are testing my memory. In 1969 they took our 14's and gave us new in the box 16's. I think I remember a cleaning kit in the box.

Well I never saw a box either. Ours were all well used by the time we got them in mid 1966. For that matter there was no cleaning gear for M60's either. Tooth brush and avgas. A piece of monofilament with a piece of rag for a patch. Lots of malfunctions on the 16 but the 60 would run pretty well if you kept the carbon scraped off the gas plug/piston. No parts either.

I think they were designed to be discarded after the magazine was empty. Same concept as the Bell-47's...……..when the fuel cell ran dry find a replacement.

LOL!!!!!!!!! Been there done that !!

Do I need to post your picture of you sitting in that pile of scrap iron? "The Bell 47 has just enough shaft horsepower to get you to the scene of the crash!"

there in lies the problem

it should have looked something like this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LVXGE4U/?tag=thegunzone-20
but could have been even smaller with just a pulll throu

the AR15/M16 really is an easy to work on gun you can completely build one with a small tool bag of tools including barrel change.

imagine how many lives could have been saved with a cleaning kit and the same basic maintenance you were already taught.

Basic training in the Army 1964- qualified with the M14. Excellent weapon.

spend billions on training , medical , ships , planes , and other equipment then render the most essential tools useless wanting for a few dollars of cleaning supplies and spare parts.

A lot of it was how "cheap" can we get by!

Put those politicians out there and its a different story.

I'd forgotten about those radios. Sure seemed a lot bigger and heavier than it looks like here. Thanks, great pictures.

The day the military is taken completely in consideration will be the day we "kick butt"!

A high school friend told me that when 00 buckshot goes on sale, he buys a pallet at a time.

His thoughts are be prepared instead of caught short.

The History Channel had a segment on Eugene Stoner and the AR-15 (M16) it's had a lot of info on the start and changes the military made to it that causes a lot of the issues it had at the beginning.

Powder changes were made from the one it was designed to use, cleaning kit were not issued at first as the cleaner burning powder was thought to not foul much, the powder they ended up using was not as clean.

The original ARs were chrome lined the "Wiz Kids" in DC changed that to save money and the bullets would stick in the chambers in wet conditions.

A good show if you ever get a chance check it out on the Tales of the gun series!