quote:

quote:

I have always liked the old school slim light guns without all the junk hanging off them that is common these days.

I call them man Barbies®.

You get none of the advantages of an M14, but with all the weight.

I don't have a bone to pick with any one member. I am using this quote from Mars Attacks' recent SP1 thread as the latest example of a recurring comment on this forum. It's no doubt seen on every firearm forum online.

It's a discussion we've had before, and it's one that, I believe, is largely influenced by subjective preferential differences due to inevitable generational differences across the firearms "community".

The advantages of an M14, as described in these discussions across the internet, is the ballistic advantage of 7.62x51.

It's inarguable that a 10LB gun in 7.62x51mm is ballistically superior to a 10LB gun in 5.56x45mm, and therefore preferable. More performance at the same weight is a no-brainer.

However, if that 5.56 rifle started life as a six pound gun, and now sits at the 10LB mark because it wears a variable power optic, flashlight, MFAL, and silencer, then there's performance attributes outside (or maybe not) of ballistics that warrant honest measurement.

I say "maybe not", in regards to ballistic performance, because an MFAL paired with worn night vision gives the AR a significant boost in ballistic performance at night, when compared to the M14. I can see and aim the AR in the dark, which enables me to deliver all the ballistic performance of the 5.56, out to a medium range. I can't see and aim the M14 at all, and am therefore able to deliver zero ballistic performance.

The same can be said of flashlights.

The burden of heavier ammunition is also part of the equation.

These are only a few aspects of the conversation, without even getting into optics or silencers.

I appreciate a light, handy AR as much as the next guy, but contemporary "Barbie" or "Lego" "accessories" are a big deal on the contemporary battlefield.

As usual, everything depends on "use case". If the use case is combat on a contemporary battlefield, the 10LB AR is superior to the M14 (or other similar rifle). Am I currently a soldier on a contemporary battlefield? No. That's not the point. The point is blanket statements like "when you bolt all that crap on an AR, and it ends up weighing as much as an M14, you get none of the advantages of an M14, but with all the weight is just not accurate.

Is it true that you didn't transform your AR15 into a 7.62x51-chambered rifle? Yes. Is it true that the added weight isn't worth it's weight in added capability, and therefore provides no advantages? No.

Further muddying the waters of that argument is that there are now sub-6 pound .308 ARs available... So you don't even have to compromise in caliber.

Indeed. That makes it more dynamic.

The M14 is the oft-cited competitor, due to the aforementioned generational differences. If the "Barbie" AR detractors' argument was that a lightweight AR10 in 7.62x51 or 6.5CM, identically equipped to the Barbie, was worth the minimal extra weight to gain the ballistic advantage, it'd be more logical.

Weighing the compromises made in a lightweight AR10 into the equation would make it interesting. The ammo burden is still a factor. It does seem there has been a bit of a 6.5CM AR-based "carbine" renaissance lately, and the NGSW products are going toward ballistically superior calibers at the expense of weight and bulk of the rifle system.

Comments like the one in the OP imply that the items often added to an AR15 are zero value added; only weight, which is silly.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

Dig into DTIC, the .30 cal vs .22 CAL effectiveness in a military context was heavily debated and researched. With paritzans and "scientists" on both sides. Key to the debate was the projected combat distances, types of conflict, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of the key documents are still not released to the public (I don't' know why).

Retrospectively, I kind of wish we had went with the cartridge Garand had proposed or the one the Brits later proposed (.280 IIRC). We would have a had a good combination of controllability and performance, but as they say "hindsight is 20/20". At the end of the day, we would still wind-up bolting on Optics and other accessories to extend the weapons capabilities for night and distance, but we do that to 5.56mm and 7.62mm a well.

quote:

Unfortunately, alot of the key documents are still not released to the public (I don't' know why)

Presumably because the argument favored .30 cal?

That would hardly change the conversation, really, as the conversation is as much about the weight of add-ons; as it is the inherent weight of the rifle. So long as the add-ons exist, their advantages will be desired, and their associated weights will be added to the host rifle.

A 10LB M14 isn't preferrable to a 14LB M14, if the 14LB M14's four extra pounds are in the form of "enablers", that give it a significant edge on the battlefield.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

Unfortunately, alot of the key documents are still not released to the public (I don't' know why)

Presumably because the argument favored .30 cal?

That would hardly change the conversation, really, as the conversation is as much about the weight of add-ons; as it is the inherent weight of the rifle. So long as the add-ons exist, their advantages will be desired, and their associated weights will be added to the host rifle.

A 10LB M14 isn't preferrable to a 14LB M14, if the 14LB M14's four extra pounds are in the form of "enablers", that give it a significant edge on the battlefield.

If I had to offer a guess as to why the info wasn't released, i'd go with the following.

A) The Army tends to over-classify and not go back and release info. Some of what we know about the SCHV study resulted from a FOIA request by a historian.

B) Some of the data was obtained via means that some folks would find objectionable.

C) Some of the planning considerations came from our Nuclear War doctrine at the time.

I don’t understand the argument.

It’s like saying a hammer is a superior tool than a screwdriver because you can hit stuff with it.

Even in the AR class, a gun set up for mid-long distance will weigh more than an unsuppressed SBR used for vehicle interdiction work. Weight is only dictated by desire or necessity.

The M14 argument is seemingly made by someone who doesn't understand the abilities granted by the modern accessories. So long as your enemy has access to similar stuff, you'd be at a disadvantage not to have it. If the enemy doesn't have similar stuff: your access to it gives you an advantage.

If all the enemy has is 10LB M14s with iron sights, then I guess I am fine with that being my weapon; at least the playing field is level. However, if I can have a 10LB 5.56mm rifle with all the goodies, I'll drop that M14 in a heartbeat, because that AR gives me advantages over the enemy. If the enemy has 10LB ARs with the add-ons, and I only have access to the M14, I am going to be required to make big compromises in my battlefield goals, due to the fact that I am out-gunned. Not out-calibered; out-gunned.

You could hand me a semi-auto 20rd 10LB 50BMG rifle with nothing attached to it but irons, and I am still going to hand it back to you, in favor of a 10LB AR in 5.56 with the add-ons. You could even put an optic on the .50. Add-ons for the ARs would still be enabling low light, night, and CQB activities. Even in a daylight fight, the AR side of the battle has more ammo on the gun, and far more on their body and in equipment, which will certainly grant more fire-and-maneuver capability, which will win the fight.

Again, this discussion is in the context of contemporary warfare; not home defense.

And if anyone intends to cite a conflict in which some folks without wizz-bang stuff put the hurt on folks with all the wizz-bang stuff, please consider any tactical limitations that may have been imposed on the better-equipped side. Also, consider how much worse that ass-whooping would have been, had the under-equipped folks been evenly-equipped.

Also, if the enemy was equipped across the board with M14s with add-ons, then there would be a more compelling argument for a desire for the same. However, total system weight (taking into consideration ammo loads) would be different, and we'd need to consider if the extra weight is worth the caliber upgrade, or if we'd be better served staying lighter/smaller with more bullets. More of a 9mm versus .45 argument.

As is also often-repeated: at the end of the day, we can do what we want, and the modern industry has blessed us with choices. That's a fact. Let's just please not pretend that attaching a MFAL, silencer, flashlight, and LPVO to a rifle is the same as lashing a brick to it.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I don’t understand the argument.

Even in the AR class, a gun set up for mid-long distance will weigh more than an unsuppressed SBR used for vehicle interdiction work. Weight is only dictated by desire or necessity.

Bingo.
The M14 is a respectable rifle. It's done the job needed for a reasonable amount of time. But comparing an AR15 to an M14, with much of the emphasis being on total rifle weight, just makes no sense.

The M14 is surpassed in many ways by the AR10:
- It's easier to accurize an AR10, and to keep it accurate.
- It's easier to change the configuration of the AR10, and to add accessories. An AR10 can weigh very little, be heavy as a pig, or somewhere in between. It has rails and the ability to quickly change buttstocks. It accepts optics way, way better.
- It's easier to change an AR10's barrel. And change its caliber -- say, to a Creedmoor or similar chambering.

If an AR15's 223 caliber just isn't enough for the intended use, then jump up to a 308 (or whatever) AR10. I realize there's some nostalgia with the M14 -- including the walnut stock -- but there comes a time when one should move on. The M14 is long in the tooth when compared to the AR10.

Perhaps the whole thing can be summed-up by saying that a 5.56 AR-15, bolstered by contemporary add-ons, in the overwhelming majority of configurations, is a better general purpose fighting rifle in the overwhelming majority of circumstances on the contemporary battlefield, than a larger caliber rifle of the same overall weight/bulk/heft, but which lacks the add-ons.

I don't see a use case in my area where I'll need to reach out to 600 yards or shoot through heavy cover. 5.56 meets all my needs.

If I was out west in wild open spaces or my concern changes from criminals to armored Russian paratroopers (WOLVERINES!!!) then my needs would change. Fortunately I have a couple .308s in the safe as well. Just in case.

It's an AR that I'd grab first to check things that go bump in the night around here though.

The M14 is a neat rifle as a collector. It’s completely outclassed by the modern AR10 and SCAR.

A KAC SR25 CC or PC, LMT MWS MLOK with lightweight chrome lined barrel, or DD5 would be my choice at present.

As for having accessories hanging off the gun, I would set any rifle up for its intended use. A light and an optic are the basic necessities.

Get a Norwegian or Swedish version of the HK G3. I think it is a pretty good modern version of a 7.62 battle rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:
Dig into DTIC, the .30 cal vs .22 CAL effectiveness in a military context was heavily debated and researched. With paritzans and "scientists" on both sides. Key to the debate was the projected combat distances, types of conflict, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of the key documents are still not released to the public (I don't' know why).

Retrospectively, I kind of wish we had went with the cartridge Garand had proposed or the one the Brits later proposed (.280 IIRC). We would have a had a good combination of controllability and performance, but as they say "hindsight is 20/20". At the end of the day, we would still wind-up bolting on Optics and other accessories to extend the weapons capabilities for night and distance, but we do that to 5.56mm and 7.62mm a well.

.276 Pederson was the OG M1 cartridge.

quote:

I would set any rifle up for its intended use.

Yes. That's always the safe catch-all statement.

To imply that a bare-bones M14 is better in most circumstances on a modern battlefield than an AR with modern equipment is absurd. That's what statements like the one in the OP are implying.

quote:

Originally posted by 357fuzz:
Get a Norwegian or Swedish version of the HK G3. I think it is a pretty good modern version of a 7.62 battle rifle.

Heavy, poor ergonomics, not great as a suppressor host, and somewhat awkward to accessorize. I love the G3, but I just appreciate it for what it is, namely a very cool Cold War era battle rifle. Contemporarily accessorized G3s and M14s were early GWOT programs that solved the need for battle rifles that could be quickly spun up from existing inventory. The options in the 308/6.5cm gas gun category are now much better than they were in the early 2000s.


If the chips were down, I’d grab the SR25 out of my safe and leave the hk91.

quote:

Originally posted by 357fuzz:
Get a Norwegian or Swedish version of the HK G3. I think it is a pretty good modern version of a 7.62 battle rifle.

Modern





Norway and Sweden adopted the G3 in the 1960s, and in both countries the G3 was replaced decades ago, except for occasional stopgap DMR use (like the US did with the M14 for a time) or for third-line home guard stockpiles.

quote:

Originally posted by 357fuzz:

.276 Pederson was the OG M1 cartridge.

Thank you, I couldn't remember for the life of me.

mod·ern
/ˈmädərn/
adjective
relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past.

1956 - "present or recent times" or "remote past"