JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
"ROBUST"

No need to speak caliber and it's effects upon a target.

Hummm.....so, do you remember that black and white movie where the recruits were thought team work in scaling a small wall? Yup. one guy would hold the rifle's butt while another would hold the rifle by it's barrel end. Then, they used the M1 as a sort of a step (ladder fashion) to help their buddies over the wall.

OK, Ok, ok....so, do you think that a modern rifle (skinny steel bbl, plastic and aluminum construction) would still shoot straight enough once that was done?

LOL.....yup, using a rifle like in that old film is probably not a really good idea today.

So, ROBUST? Maybe, due to the M1s construction, it would/could probably fair better, than the rifles that came after it.;)

Aloha, Mark
FALs and AKs have probably seen worse, whether using polymer or wood furniture. I'd say they're plenty modern in comparison. ;)

No idea for M4s, but Lord only knows what they go through in the hands of a soldier or marine...
 
I guess this could be an experiment.

Then again.....just using my imagination. A bunch of Pvt. Pyle(s) or Pvt. Ivan(s) or Private Whoever? Then, just thinking about the weight of a man + pack say = 200 pounds or more. With his weight centered on the rifle, using it as a step.

Wait a second.....
It'll makes a big difference if now one of them is holding a handguard (not the barrel) while another man holds a rifle butt.

Vs.....

One man holding a rifle butt and one man comfortably holding the end of the barrel (including f/s).

Hummm.....hand placement matters. And, so will the position of which way the rifle is being held (straight up vs. horizontally). IIRC....in the movie, the M1 was held horizontally (yeah....a wider/bigger step).

In the latter case.....I'd be thinking that the barrel will bend significantly in the case of the FN FAL. As for holding the handguard......hummm.....slippery plastic. Ok, some countries have metal handguards.

Then the AKM.....
Humm.....the barrel is mounted to a trunion within a sheet metal frame. So, the barrel could outright bend. Then again, the frame could probably get dented or twist. Maybe even popping a rivet. And maybe, if the guy stepped on the wrong part of the rifle he might even bend the dust cover (or gas tube).....locking up it's function.

Jeez.....this is a tough crowd. Anyway......I'm probably over thinking this. You guys can think up your own tests for ROBUSTNESS. LOL.

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
In the latter case.....I'd be thinking that the barrel will bend significantly in the case of the FN FAL. Holding the handguard......hummm.....slippery plastic. Ok, some countries have metal handguards.
Doubtful. Unless you're talking DSA barrels, then maybe. The handguards ranged from wood to steel to polymer. Steel only exists because at the time the bipods were introduced wooden handguards were not durable enough after cutting them for a bipod, and polymer wasn't really a thing at the time.
Humm.....the barrel is mounted to a trunion within a sheet metal frame. So, the barrel could outright bend. Then again, the frame could probably twist. Maybe even popping a rivet. And maybe, if the guy stepped on the wrong part of the rifle he might even bend the dust cover.....locking up the function.
AKM=STAMPED receiver. AK-47=MILLED receiver. Also, bend dust cover? Pop that sh!t off till you find a new one. I couldn't bend a PSL barrel when pressing my weight into it, I doubt it'll be easy to bend a 16" barrel that'll me much more rigid than a 24" one.

When you're issued something instead of having to buy it, you won't have second thoughts of doing stupid things (at least during cold war anyways). Ivan or whoever had the AK, or the FAL, probably does whatever to the rifle if nothing else is available.
 
When you're issued something instead of having to buy it, you won't have second thoughts of doing stupid things (at least during cold war anyways). Ivan or whoever had the AK, or the FAL, probably does whatever to the rifle if nothing else is available.

As I said prior.......
Don't get me wrong......
I agree that there are probably better and cheaper ways to scale a small wall vs. using your rifle.

Aloha, Mark
 
6.5 Creedmoor M14 in a Blackfeather 6.5Creed.jpg
 
what about the BM59? I'll admit, I am a bit of a novice. I would like to own an M1 (only shot one at the now defunct Saddle Butte machine gun shoot.). But the BM59 seems to me to be the M1 Garand versions 2.0. Or what the M14 should have been. I've been toying with at least getting build kit for a BM59 whole there are still available.
 
This afternoon, I was out shooting one of my M1A's. I had the same nagging thought about that flash suppressor. It's way out there. My feeling for some time has been that this is an appendage that is in hazard's way. And once dislodged, you've also lost your front sight which is attached to it.

I don't like the bayonet attachment on either the M1 Garand or the M14 design. On the M1 Garand, the ball stud that fits into the gas cylinder plug isn't as sturdy as a ring that encircles the barrel. And being locked onto the gas cylinder, this entire arrangement isn't nearly as sturdy as, say, an '03 Springfield. The M14 design bayonet mount isn't very sturdy because it attaches to the flash suppressor only, which I've already opined was a relatively fragile design.

Also, there is the matter of the (again) relatively long forward end of the M14 barrel. Barrel steel isn't all that hard; service barrels aren't all that thick. Knowing what I do about how soldiers abuse equipment, it isn't too difficult to imagine one of these barrels getting bent from prying, horsing around with a bayonet fixed, etc.

Then there is the ammo feed design of both rifles. Some people have complained that the 8 round en bloc design has its limitations. No argument, the M1 Garand was an early yet successful entry as a fielded army semi automatic rifle. So the detachable magazine on the M14 design was supposed to be an improvement. In some ways, yes. But the magazine in the M14 needs to be angled in such a position in the well in order for it to lock in. Sometimes they need a little fussing to get it locked.

I suppose we can assume that in the all-volunteer army, soldiers in the main tend to be gun-wise. That wasn't the case in the days of the M14. I can imagine panicked rookie soldiers trying and having difficulty with changing mags in the M14 in combat.

My own US Army experience started with the M14 rifle. I used it in training and it was the rifle issued to me at my first permanent duty station. These were taken away and replaced with the M16 design circa April or May 1970. In Vietnam, I had the M16 design. I have no army experience with the M1 Garand but I own some and have acquired some experience with that design.

The original M14 flash suppressor that I complain about makes the rifle, in my opinion, abnormally long and therefore a bit unwieldy in some situations. However, I notice now that aftermarket suppressors are available that are some shorter. No, I'm not going for the so-called SOCOM design.
BTW. Thank you for your service.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top