Originally Posted by roadkill
Originally Posted by Goatkiller
The M14 was a great rifle and I get why they designed it off the M1 but things changed and there is a reason they were not in service very long... A fine weapon. But either way you just couldn't control it firing a burst. Wasn't happening.

Don't need one. But I got a lot of stuff I don't need. Ar-10 is 10x better.

This 100%. I've owned two DPMS AR10s. Good design, flat top with a rail so easy to mount a scope, simple to clean and maintain, reliable and unbelievably accurate. They can however be sensitive to reloads. Sent them on down the line when I stopped deer hunting.

Of the three main battle rifles of the 1960s (FAL, G3, M14) the FAL was the best.


I have a Mini-14 and a Mini-30. Both based on the Garand/M-14 design.

I often wonder if the Mini-14 had been selected instead of the Armalite, how good would the Mini-14 family be right now and would we have all forgotten about the AR-15 as some stupid kid's toy rifle by now.

I'm still of the camp that if you put as much R&D into the Mini-14 family, it would be a better rifle than the current crop of service rifles and be much more reliable too. I've never liked the AR platform. I just never thought it was robust enough for a battle rifle. And yes, with the same level of R&D the Mini-14 family could be just as light as the AR family.

Last edited by Irishguy; 08/10/26 12:52 PM.
"When I say ever thing I mean ever thing." - Frankie