Is that what H2O Man's posts show?

I'm sorry about you seeing nothing but a red X.

The last image I posted is my CQB-16 in a super light weight Chinese Chu wood stock.

The others are mostly these two rifle in different configurations.

Had to sell mine recently due to a pending divorce. .. tearing up looking at these pics now

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

My 1st attempt at finishing a stock... learning as I go.

Langenator, that is just one of 2 or 3 opinion pieces published by M14 hating hacks.

I wouldn't suggest that you waste much time on it.

looking at your first picture I was worried it would be horribly blotchy.  But I really like the way it came out. 

I dislike stain jobs that hide the variations in wood.  If the finish is uniform, then it just as well be plastic IMHO.

Good Job   

Just came across this article yesterday, although it is dated back in January: http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/

Anyone else see this?  Thoughts?

I hadn't seen it before I do have a couple of thoughts on it though after reading it. One the person who wrote it doesn't like the M-14 for what ever reason.

The main argument against it seems to be the cost of manufacture and accurizing the rifle. Well no crap the M-14 costs more to make than an M-16. I don’t see what the surprise is there. Just because the M-14 costs a lot to make doesn’t make it a bad rifle. Yeah it ended up costing more than was originally anticipated because they couldn’t use the M1 machines and tooling like they were hoping to.

Next off the author goes off about how it didn’t meet its accuracy requirements. I am un aware of this problem at least in mass. It is has been my experience that the M1A the semi-auto version is a fine weapon with good accuracy. Granted a semi-auto M1A isn’t an M-14 how ever it is fairly close. It has been my experience that they have better accuracy than the L1A1 or at least the civilian ones I have shot. Again I haven’t shoot the military version but I would think it is close as well. This would have been the rifle that the M-14 was up against at the time.

Further more it seems like half the article is about the M21 which is decidedly not a rack grade standard issue M-14. It is like comparing apples to oranges. Yeah both are fairly round and grow on a tree but there are a lot of differences too. The conclusion seems to be because the M21 was replaced by the M24 it was a failure. I wouldn’t say so. The Army could have adopted a Remington 700 based sniper rifle long before they did. It isn’t like that type of rifle didn’t come around until later. The fact that they didn’t indicates to me that they were pretty happy with the M21 for quite some time. The M21 has had some major success in its history as a sniper rifle. Again criticizing the M21 as not being as accurate and more expensive than the M24 is like comparing apples to oranges again. Much like the M-14 sucks because the M-16 is cheaper to make and replaced it so therefore the M-16 must be better argument that doesn’t mean the M21 sucks.

It would seem to me that generally bolt action guns are more accurate than you average semi-auto. As well they are often cheaper to produce especially when talking about match grade examples . As well the author tries to make a big deal out of the fact that over the years the army has been constantly upgrading the M21 and tweaking it. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is bad or something is wrong with it. It is worth considering several things. First the M21 was not the standard issue rifle. Two it would be foolish not to incorporate improvements in technology and lessons learned about it into the rifle. How many improvements were made to the basic standard issue M-16 and later M4? I would bet more than were made to the M-14. Again this doesn’t mean that the M21 sucks, it has some features going for it that the M24 doesn’t. Chief among those its semi-auto operation. The Army apparently decided that accuracy was a higher priority than volume of fire. As well the supply of new rifles to make M21s was limited as the M-14 had officially been retired. I don’t think this means that the M21 was a bad rifle.

Further more from the guys I have talked to who served in Vietnam no one complained about the M-14. I do know some guys though who had trouble with the M-16 and went back to the M-14 though. Though it has been my observation of talking to more recent vets the problems with the M-16 serries of rifles has been solved as I haven’t heard much bad about that rifle now and plenty of good things especially in regards to the M4.

I think it is a case of times change and technology improves. It would seem that the M-16 series of rifles has passed the M-14 for a number of reasons. If I had my choice though I would still take an M-14 over an M-16 any day of the week. Perhaps it is because I have trained with my M1A more than I have and AR-15. Or perhaps it is because despite all of the improvements to the M-16 series of rifles there is no disputing the fact that the M-14 hits harder at longer ranges than the M-16. As well I just like the M1A better than the AR. I don’t know why but I just have never really gotten into ARs.

If you really want ot knock the M-14 this is the way to do it,

Well there you have it my two cents.

I do still want a SOCOM 16.  It's a handier version of a classic.

IMHO, they saw the M14 fir what it was. ..a superbly manufactured firearm based on (then) current firearms design philosophy and the FAL was seen as the future.   The US allay had a heavy wood semi auto (M1) so the M14 was a small evolutionary step in thinking.   The Europeans were mostly replacing 50+ year old bolt designs and we're not so bored down in a small leap.   Plus it was made in Europe by a NATO ally

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

My understanding is that until the arctic testing, the FAL was actually beating the M14, and by a not insubstantial margin.

Here's my big question: why did pretty much nobody buy the M14 except the United States, while the rifle the M14 beat in the Army trials, the FAL, was purchased by tons of countries?

I believe the FAL was much easier to produce.

I'd guess the same applied to the G3 as well, with the added bonus of a stamped sheet metal receiver.

The FAL is probably a better battle rifle (I own both).   The main reason it wasn't adopted by the US was because it wasn't invented here. 


That being said, there are a few areas where the M14/M1A has some slight advantages.

1.  Better iron sights.  The click adjustable windage and elevation sights are awesome.  Just like they were on the M1 Garand.   The FAL does have some adjustment for elevation,  and it works fairly well.  However, it can only adjust for range in 100 meter increments and doesn't have the fine adjustment the M14 does.  Windage adjustment requires a screwdriver and is not nearly as precise.  Not something you can easily do when you are in the middle of shooting like you can with the M14.   I'm sure this could be added to the FAL with a little engineering work.  I have seen some home gunsmithing hacks where people have grafted on M1/M14 style rear sights onto an FAL lower.   With some small design changes,  this could have been added to the FAL as a factory option.   

2. Better ergonomics for *some* people.   If you prefer more traditional style rifles,  the M14 is easier to adapt to.   However,  this advantage is small and most people probably wouldn't even notice it.

3.  Seems slightly easier to use a sling.   Slings work ok with both rifles as long as they have a front swivel installed.  However, it seems to work just a tiny bit better with the M14. Of course this might just be subjective on my part.   


The FAL has several areas where it has some advantages.
1.  Easier to mount optics.    Replace the dustcover and you are good to go.
2.  Magazine changes are easier.   Both rifles uses 20 round magazines that rock in,  but it just seems like with the FAL it is easier to get them in properly.
3.  More modular means it is easier to customize the furniture without replacing the entire stock system.    It's still not as customizable as an AR,  but then not much is.
4.  Easier to clean.  I always hate having to clean from the muzzle end.  With the FAL, you can just unlatch the lower and upper and run a cleaning rod in from the back.   
5.  Looks cooler.   Yes,  I know that's a dumb reason.     Also, I'm talking about the base models.  Not H20 Man's awesome custom setups.