I don't know why this question is still asked..

[ironglowz]

  Why does the question keep coming up..   "Is the M14 better than the M1?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2c7g_ZwpH0

  To me, having been issued both rifles..at a different time of course, there is no question, the M14 is a huge improvement !  It fills in the places where the M1 came up short !

  Here are some of the improvements brought by the M14;

  1.) Shorter operating rod, for less reciprocating weight

  2.)  Magazines of 20 round or greater capacity..

  3.) blast deflector, standard.

 4.) No "M1 thumb" threat ! 

  Overall, the M14 is just a bayonet capable as the M1, and the .308 is a more inherently accurate round (IMO).  Other than that, the similarities are quite striking.
 

[Dee]

The 3006 is inherently an accurate round, as is the 308. But the M14 has far more positives than the M1. AND, the M4 outshines the M14 for weight, length, and rounds transportable.

[Lloyd Smale]

m14 all the way. if for no other reason than using magazines

[AtlLaw]

I also trained with the M1 and the M14.  And I also believe that the M14 was a better battle rifle then the M1 for the reasons stated.  But darn I love the M1!  It just exudes John Wayne!   
I never got any training on the M16.     The Army just issued me one and sent me out to kill communists... 

[ironglowz]

The 3006 is inherently an accurate round, as is the 308. But the M14 has far more positives than the M1. AND, the M4 outshines the M14 for weight, length, and rounds transportable.

  I may be making my assumptions, based upon the fact that I scored higher consistently, with the .308.

 I wonder...do you believe 30/06 rounds are lighter, more transportable than the .308 ?  Of course, then there is the .308 being conformable to the  NATO standard.

  I have always considered the .308 round to be a tiny bit lighter, since it is visibly shorter..

[Lloyd Smale]

i think dee is talking 06 vs 308 for inherent accuracy not m14 vs m1 for accuracy. the 14 was the more accurate weapon but i dont put alot of store in inherently accurate cartridges. sure some may have an edge in bench rest shooting where .0001 makes the difference if your taking a trophy home or not. but means nothing on a battle field. the main reason a 308 as a short range sniper rifle outshines an 06 (which was also used) imo isnt the round but the fact it gives "almost" the same velocities and does it in a stiffer short action. same with the 6.5 creed vs 308 bs. some keyboard snipers would have you think the creed shoots like a lazer and the 308 drops like a rock. reality is theres very little difference and that doesnt even start to show up till 500 yards. real comical thing were hunters that think guns and ammo is a bible traded off their 308s and bought Creemore's for deer rifles. what they ended up with was a less powerful rifle at out to 500 yards and 99.9 percent of them couldnt make a 8" 5 shot group at 300 and have no business shooting at deer even at that range. but if gun rags spout it "they will come"  same wanabe experts that claimed if you didnt trade your 06 for a 308 back in the day youd go from not hitting a bus at 300 yards with your 06 to shooting the eye out of a fly at 500 with your 762. only real truth in it is it sells guns to people who think they can buy skill at the gunshop. just think back to when the 270 came out for example. you couldnt give away an 06 that is better in every way because they brainwashed the ignorant that if they didnt show up to hunt with a brand new shinny 270 they werent a rifleman. how many are still sold today to people who actually believe it somehow is superior to an 06!! generations of sons and grandsons getting that same hook set in their mouth! only difference is today some are tossing that 270 for an even more lame round the creedmore! the 308? it just sat back quietly without alot of fan fair because its boring and boringly KILLED crap! Still does today

[Mule 11]

Guy’s, Dee said m4…

[ironglowz]

Guy’s, Dee said m4…

  OK, my apologies to Dee, I just considered the M4 as a typo, since the ones under discussion were the M1 and M14..

  Yes; the M4 (M16) was adopted for logistics supply reasons...plus for the smaller statured Vietnamese allies..who at first found the M1 carbine more comfortable to use than the M14.

[Bob Riebe]

i think dee is talking 06 vs 308 for inherent accuracy not m14 vs m1 for accuracy. the 14 was the more accurate weapon but i dont put alot of store in inherently accurate cartridges. sure some may have an edge in bench rest shooting where .0001 makes the difference if your taking a trophy home or not. but means nothing on a battle field. the main reason a 308 as a short range sniper rifle outshines an 06 (which was also used) imo isnt the round but the fact it gives "almost" the same velocities and does it in a stiffer short action. same with the 6.5 creed vs 308 bs. some keyboard snipers would have you think the creed shoots like a lazer and the 308 drops like a rock. reality is theres very little difference and that doesnt even start to show up till 500 yards. real comical thing were hunters that think guns and ammo is a bible traded off their 308s and bought Creemore's for deer rifles. what they ended up with was a less powerful rifle at out to 500 yards and 99.9 percent of them couldnt make a 8" 5 shot group at 300 and have no business shooting at deer even at that range. but if gun rags spout it "they will come"  same wanabe experts that claimed if you didnt trade your 06 for a 308 back in the day youd go from not hitting a bus at 300 yards with your 06 to shooting the eye out of a fly at 500 with your 762. only real truth in it is it sells guns to people who think they can buy skill at the gunshop. just think back to when the 270 came out for example. you couldnt give away an 06 that is better in every way because they brainwashed the ignorant that if they didnt show up to hunt with a brand new shinny 270 they werent a rifleman. how many are still sold today to people who actually believe it somehow is superior to an 06!! generations of sons and grandsons getting that same hook set in their mouth! only difference is today some are tossing that 270 for an even more lame round the creedmore! the 308? it just sat back quietly without alot of fan fair because its boring and boringly KILLED crap! Still does today

Ah, the old change for the sake of change ($$$$) bit that keeps newbies buying latest greatest , while veteran shooters are usually happy with the same old, same old.

     I should have saved it but there is a comparison of 6.5 rounds, latest and oldest, which is a bit of a scam, in a way.
The 6.5 Swede was in the test, BUT, the catridge they used for the comparison was the old round nosed bullet from 70 years ago not the Spitzer that is now standard ; so naturally is was not quite as good as the latest greatest.

     One reason I say this is, the change from a round nosed bullet to a Spitzer was one of the main changes between the Springfield '03 and  the '06 military cartridges. (Yes the case was shortened also.)
     

[ironglowz]

  It seems to me that much of the "romance" with the old M1 is as Richard mentioned...the John Wayne effect..

[Casull]

  It seems to me that much of the "romance" with the old M1 is as Richard mentioned...the John Wayne effect..

Or maybe the fact that it won WW2.

[ironglowz]

  It seems to me that much of the "romance" with the old M1 is as Richard mentioned...the John Wayne effect..

Or maybe the fact that it won WW2.

    No doubt, the M1 was probably the best rifle of the WW2 era !

  ..But I tend to think ships, tanks, planes, troops and especially aircraft carriers, played a part in the victory also.

[Lloyd Smale]

if the m4 is an allowable choice thats my pick hands down.

Guy’s, Dee said m4…

[Lone Star]

While the design of the M14 was superior, the actual manufacture was far inferior to the M1 Garand.  Just too many failures by the manufacturers, too many lousy rifles.  The M1A1 was much better, but that wasn’t a service rifle.  The M14’# shortcomings are outlined here.

https://youtu.be/pL-dLeWvbss?si=1KWEc2ZKPfKZYH6N



.

[ironglowz]

While the design of the M14 was superior, the actual manufacture was far inferior to the M1 Garand.  Just too many failures by the manufacturers, too many lousy rifles.  The M1A1 was much better, but that wasn’t a service rifle.  The M14’# shortcomings are outlined here.

https://youtu.be/pL-dLeWvbss?si=1KWEc2ZKPfKZYH6N



.

  I wonder if that fellow reviewing the M14, didn't have some biases.  I trained with both M1 and M14, and obviously we  fired on range as a company..(ideally 250 per co.)., I noticed no difference so far as dependability was concerned....even when used on ranges with sandy soil.

  Actually, with a cursory look, there seems to be little difference between the actual actions, other than the M14 having a shorter operating rod & system..which we were told added to the dependability factor, and the allowance for a true magazine loading system.

  So far as the M14 losing accuracy under sustained firing, almost any rifle will lose some accuracy under those conditions...to varying degrees.

  Then too, when comparing the M14 to the M14..let's face it, the sustained fire we are talking about was not feasible with the M1, with it's awkward clip  needing to be reloaded so much more often.  the few seconds reloading time between each 8 rounds was a "cooliung grace" period as I see it !

   Here for instance, if Chuck Mawhinney had been using an M1 or his usual M40, he either would not have taken the shot...or would likely have died trying...

  ..But he had an M14, and it turned out a far different story...    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP3wvTTiH5M

[Dee]

I've never held the perfect rifle so I likely wouldn't recognize it if I saw it. Sitting at a table in an environmentally controlled room pointing out minut shortcomings on a rifle while having ZERO experience with said rifle in actual combat, is speculative at best.

Having fired the M1, and M14 in a slightly less controlled environment such as a rifle range once or twice a month on a military base is in fact a slightly more knowledgeable opinion, but only slightly more.

But havin an M1 shoved into your hands and being told: Here! Go fight WWII with this, and try to win it, or the same with Vietnam. : Here's your new rifle. We call it the M14. Hopefully it works out for you.

The facts after the facts are: The M1 worked as well as it could work under the conditions it was used in. The American soldier took what he was given, and made it work.

The same can be said about the M14. Politicians lost the Vietnam War. Not the soldiers, nor the M14, nor even the newer M16 loaded with the wrong powder causing constant chamber, and action contamination.

When the white man showed up in America with his muzzleloading rifle, the American Indians hung onto their bows and arrows because they were easier to reload. Awww, but when the leveraction repeater arrived, they made the change.

Just when they've worked most of the bugs out of the M4, they're wanting to switch to sumthin they say is better,  but isn't. But then again,  "they" won't be pulling the trigger,  will they.

Truth is, there ain't no perfect rifle,  or pistol for that matter. So, I'll just hang onto what I know works.  For me at least.

[ironglowz]

  From Dee;
  "
But havin an M1 shoved into your hands and being told: Here! Go fight WWII with this, and try to win it, or the same with Vietnam. : Here's your new rifle. We call it the M14. Hopefully it works out for you.

The facts after the facts are: The M1 worked as well as it could work under the conditions it was used in. The American soldier took what he was given, and made it work.

The same can be said about the M14. Politicians lost the Vietnam War. Not the soldiers, nor the M14, nor even the newer M16 loaded with the wrong powder causing constant chamber, and action contamination."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  DITTO...all true, to include "bean counter" McNamara's decision to ignore Stoner, and save a couple bucks by not chrome plating the chamber/bore of the M16..

  Keep in mind, in Vietnam the M16 was used in hot, steamy jungle conditions.

  "No perfect rifle".... especially since our weapons are likely to be used in arctic , to desert, to plains, mountain and tidal conditions.. no perfect "one size fits all" piece..