Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: hatt
The M14 is better than an M4 at 600+ meter engagements. The M4 was never intended for such a role. That doesn't mean the M14 is better than modern weapons that are designed for such things. Other rifles are chambered in 7.62. And there are other rounds that excel at range. M16s chambered in 6.5 Grendel would worked great and been more practical than M14s dug out of mothballs. The M14 was obsolete when it was introduced since the AR10 was already on the scene.
The M16's bad rep came from a bungled rollout in Vietnam. Soldiers that came along later in the war loved them. Than more nonsense later on using M855 in 14.5 inch barrels. With the introduction of MK262, MK318, M855A1 that problem is being fixed.
I'm surprised you would fall into such a blind hole, trying to defend weapons the way you are attempting. The M-4 is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not a wonder weapon. It is a tool like many. Would you argue a pitchfork is "better" than a shovel? You would have to be stupid. Yet you do much the same involving weapons. If the M-4 was so wonderful, why wasn't there a single one involved in the Bin Laden raid? All were carrying H&K 416's. These guys can have any weapon they want. They didn't choose M-4's for obvious reasons.
Not everyone is in love with the 416. The 416 came along to remedy the issues that the MK18 finally overcame after a bit more R&D, and the MK18 is a lot more user friendly (not a boat anchor) than the 416.
In recent years the AR platform has been transformed into everything except a kitchen appliance. All in an attempt to make it "better". None have worked out all that well. Aside from a bunch of tacticool accessories they've managed to hang all over it, it's not much different than the problem plagued original that was shoved down soldiers throats in Vietnam. They've sprayed different coatings on it. Chambered it in every round imaginable. Hung every optic and battle sight on it known to mankind. Bolted lasers and flashlights to it. Came up with 4,973 different butt stocks for it. Along with 5,971 different forends that will fit it. That, and another 2,671 different size and shaped pistol grips that will fit any size or shaped hand imaginable. It's very modular, yes, and what problems, exactly, does it have? It was more reliable than the M14 in 1969 (per military testing), and it still is, today.
And when all is said and done, it's the same .22 varmint rifle Colt was trying to sell to the public back in 1969, in a full page ad in Field & Stream. Except now it costs more. And has wider acceptance, because a generation advertising can't be wrong. I own several. And they make terrific range toys. Which like you and everyone else, is what I use them for. But if I was going to depend on a rifle to "save my life", there are certainly far better ones to choose from, in much better calibers than what Prairie Dog shooters favor. As always YMMV.
Like you said, people who can have any weapon they want often grab M4 type weapons.
Originally Posted By: hatt
The M14 is better than an M4 at 600+ meter engagements. The M4 was never intended for such a role. That doesn't mean the M14 is better than modern weapons that are designed for such things. Other rifles are chambered in 7.62. And there are other rounds that excel at range. M16s chambered in 6.5 Grendel would worked great and been more practical than M14s dug out of mothballs. The M14 was obsolete when it was introduced since the AR10 was already on the scene.
The M16's bad rep came from a bungled rollout in Vietnam. Soldiers that came along later in the war loved them. Than more nonsense later on using M855 in 14.5 inch barrels. With the introduction of MK262, MK318, M855A1 that problem is being fixed.
I'm surprised you would fall into such a blind hole, trying to defend weapons the way you are attempting. The M-4 is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not a wonder weapon. It is a tool like many. Would you argue a pitchfork is "better" than a shovel? You would have to be stupid. Yet you do much the same involving weapons. If the M-4 was so wonderful, why wasn't there a single one involved in the Bin Laden raid? All were carrying H&K 416's. These guys can have any weapon they want. They didn't choose M-4's for obvious reasons.
Not everyone is in love with the 416. The 416 came along to remedy the issues that the MK18 finally overcame after a bit more R&D, and the MK18 is a lot more user friendly (not a boat anchor) than the 416.
In recent years the AR platform has been transformed into everything except a kitchen appliance. All in an attempt to make it "better". None have worked out all that well. Aside from a bunch of tacticool accessories they've managed to hang all over it, it's not much different than the problem plagued original that was shoved down soldiers throats in Vietnam. They've sprayed different coatings on it. Chambered it in every round imaginable. Hung every optic and battle sight on it known to mankind. Bolted lasers and flashlights to it. Came up with 4,973 different butt stocks for it. Along with 5,971 different forends that will fit it. That, and another 2,671 different size and shaped pistol grips that will fit any size or shaped hand imaginable. It's very modular, yes, and what problems, exactly, does it have? It was more reliable than the M14 in 1969 (per military testing), and it still is, today.
And when all is said and done, it's the same .22 varmint rifle Colt was trying to sell to the public back in 1969, in a full page ad in Field & Stream. Except now it costs more. And has wider acceptance, because a generation advertising can't be wrong. I own several. And they make terrific range toys. Which like you and everyone else, is what I use them for. But if I was going to depend on a rifle to "save my life", there are certainly far better ones to choose from, in much better calibers than what Prairie Dog shooters favor. As always YMMV.
Like you said, people who can have any weapon they want often grab M4 type weapons.
