06-11-2011, 02:28 AM
Quote:OTOH, the M14 did undergo -- and presumably passed -- pretty tough tests before entering service. I have to think a genuine G.I. M14 could do as well as the DD M4 in those demonstrations. (Might need to be fitted with a synthetic stock, though. Not sure if a wood stock could take some of the punishment.)
Definitely, cleaning and maintenance of the AR15/M16/M4 is generally easier than the M14, although the latter has better access to the chamber.
The T44 (Springfield Armory entry prototype that became the M14), T48 (FAL), and AR-10 all did go through some pretty extensive testing. The AR-10 in particular was subjected to "extra" hardships by the test committee, to include sabotaging it..yet the AR-10 still out-performed the FAL and T44 in reliability, and especially accuracy. It was also noted that the shooters found the ergonomics on the AR-10 far superior to the FAL and T44, as well as the recoil characteristics.
Since the T44 was the Ordnance Corps' pet project, the "Not Invented Here" contestants were kicked to the curb. In my personal experiences with the M14, the reliability has been pretty bad as soon as granules of sand get into the action, which is very easy to do with an M14. The mags are also very sensitive to the larger granule sand particles, and things start to spiral downhill quick with it when you get the sand all over. Same is true with any other action, but the AR family keeps large granule sand out much better than most that I have dealt with.
While I have an aficionado/nostalgia relationship with the M14, I'm not a big proponent of it as a service rifle. I doubt an M14 would run after a basic sand immersion test. Armorer-level maintenance for it is a nightmare, and requires true gunsmithing skills from a dedicated and talented gun enthusiast. A soldier who barely passed the ASVAB can replace parts on the AR family with very little training, and no filing, tuning, unitizing, machining, drilling, etc.
LRRPF52