Log In
March 31, 2009
Offline
oldcrankyyankee said
Chuck said
Nice set up. What vintage is the rifle?
Not sure the year of receiver. I can tell you it is all Winchester except the barrel which is 51 Springfield. PS thanks for flipping the picture Chuck! It has an original oiler, cleaning rod with case and combo tool. The bayonet is a M-1943 model and the case is a “case, paratrooper, m1950. Couldn’t look the gift horse in the mouth.
From what I have been told the jump bags were used during Korea. Mine is marked 82nd Airborne. But I don’t think they were in Korea during the war?
March 31, 2009
Offline
oldcrankyyankee said
TXGunNut said
Looks like you have the makings of a calendar photo. Winchester’s war efforts are a major part of the history of the company.
Mike
Calendar photo???!!! Hell i can’t even get the stupid pictures to transfer over upright Mike! And you want me to try to make a picture for the calendar? I will get laughed out of town.
Brad will help you!
March 31, 2009
Offline
When I was in every distance was in meters, not yards. We qualified the M 16 out to 300 meters. Some of got to shoot a lot farther out. Not for record, just because we shot expert at 300 M.
February 17, 2022
Offline
I can go on all day about the USMC KD (known distance) course. One thing was the rapid fire, 10 rounds in 60 seconds and had to come from 2 separate mags. I never scored less than a possible, all 10 in the 5ring, at either line. I had the timing down so well the range NCOIC would be just starting his ” cease fire, cease fire” when I would let the last round down range! Man do I miss those days!!!
I think at the time the Marine Corps had the longest qual course at 500 yards. And for the record, that was a total GAS! 10 rounds, slow fire on the B mod target. Man size silhouette. I used to get so giddy out there at that line, never really made a bad shot unless I goofed on the mirage, then it would be a 4. But not very often! And we were doing it with our issued service rifle and standard post front sight and adjustable rear peep sight. No armorer rework on your rifle. Well except if you were his drinking buddy he would quietly file the stupid little nub off the front sight post so you had a crisp sharp top line on it. ahh the good old days! Semper fi Mac!!
January 12, 2024
Offline
Anthony said
Steven Gabrielli said
Ian is on point.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m14-americas-worst-service-rifle-what-went-wrong/
Steve,
As you’re well aware of, he usually is!
Good find!
Tony
Sorry, couldn’t disagree more. I realize I’m late to the commenting game here, but his video is highly misleading and is presented as if no one is aware that the M14 remained in Navy service long after it lost favor in within “Big Army” and Marine Corps (it may still be in use on ships today) and, in fact, was retained in a modernized form by the SEALs, who loved it (hell, it is very likely still in service with them). It also remained in service with Army Rangers for decades afterward, too. (I carried a selective fire M14 in Ranger school in the 1980s, where it gave excellent service (we automatic riflemen always opened up before the machine gunners could, always. Extremely reliable, too). Further, both the Army and Marines relied heavily on two modernized variants of the M14 in Afghanistan: The Army’s Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR)–two per rifle squad– and the Marines’ Enhanced Marksman’s Rifle (EMR)–issued at the platoon level. It was estimated that the Army and Marines had approximately 10,000 modernized M14s in service in the 2010s (perhaps still today, I don’t know). Max effective range of these modernized M14s was 800 meters, which is damn good. Further, the Army did not get rid of its Grease Guns (SMGs) until sometime in the late 1980s. Perhaps the last soldiers to employ them were army tankers and Cav scouts when the M1 tanks was fielded. They were replaced by M16s which sure as hell didn’t fit in a tank (too damn long) like a short barreled Grease Gun!
Ian missed the boat on this one, IMHO…..
December 9, 2002
Offline
Peter Brigham said
Anthony said
Steven Gabrielli said
Ian is on point.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m14-americas-worst-service-rifle-what-went-wrong/
Steve,
As you’re well aware of, he usually is!
Good find!
Tony
Sorry, couldn’t disagree more. I realize I’m late to the commenting game here, but his video is highly misleading and is presented as if no one is aware that the M14 remained in Navy service long after it lost favor in within “Big Army” and Marine Corps (it may still be in use on ships today) and, in fact, was retained in a modernized form by the SEALs, who loved it (hell, it is very likely still in service with them). It also remained in service with Army Rangers for decades afterward, too. (I carried a selective fire M14 in Ranger school in the 1980s, where it gave excellent service (we automatic riflemen always opened up before the machine gunners could, always. Extremely reliable, too). Further, both the Army and Marines relied heavily on two modernized variants of the M14 in Afghanistan: The Army’s Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR)–two per rifle squad– and the Marines’ Enhanced Marksman’s Rifle (EMR)–issued at the platoon level. It was estimated that the Army and Marines had approximately 10,000 modernized M14s in service in the 2010s (perhaps still today, I don’t know). Max effective range of these modernized M14s was 800 meters, which is damn good. Further, the Army did not get rid of its Grease Guns (SMGs) until sometime in the late 1980s. Perhaps the last soldiers to employ them were army tankers and Cav scouts when the M1 tanks was fielded. They were replaced by M16s which sure as hell didn’t fit in a tank (too damn long) like a short barreled Grease Gun!
Ian missed the boat on this one, IMHO…..
Peter,
It’s always good to hear first hand accounts, from someone who’s been there and done that. My youngest Son a Marine Scout Sniper in the Corps, spent time over there also, and couldn’t agree with you more, as I sought his opinion on more than one occasion.
Thanks for you’re comments, and for you’re Service!
Tony
January 12, 2024
Offline
Thanks, Tony. I salute your son–Scout Sniper puts him in a special class of Marine and I wish him well!
Peter
April 15, 2005
Offline
Peter Brigham said
Anthony said
Steven Gabrielli said
Ian is on point.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m14-americas-worst-service-rifle-what-went-wrong/
Steve,
As you’re well aware of, he usually is!
Good find!
Tony
Sorry, couldn’t disagree more. I realize I’m late to the commenting game here, but his video is highly misleading and is presented as if no one is aware that the M14 remained in Navy service long after it lost favor in within “Big Army” and Marine Corps (it may still be in use on ships today) and, in fact, was retained in a modernized form by the SEALs, who loved it (hell, it is very likely still in service with them). It also remained in service with Army Rangers for decades afterward, too. (I carried a selective fire M14 in Ranger school in the 1980s, where it gave excellent service (we automatic riflemen always opened up before the machine gunners could, always. Extremely reliable, too). Further, both the Army and Marines relied heavily on two modernized variants of the M14 in Afghanistan: The Army’s Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR)–two per rifle squad– and the Marines’ Enhanced Marksman’s Rifle (EMR)–issued at the platoon level. It was estimated that the Army and Marines had approximately 10,000 modernized M14s in service in the 2010s (perhaps still today, I don’t know). Max effective range of these modernized M14s was 800 meters, which is damn good. Further, the Army did not get rid of its Grease Guns (SMGs) until sometime in the late 1980s. Perhaps the last soldiers to employ them were army tankers and Cav scouts when the M1 tanks was fielded. They were replaced by M16s which sure as hell didn’t fit in a tank (too damn long) like a short barreled Grease Gun!
Ian missed the boat on this one, IMHO…..
As I previously mentioned, the U.S. Navy carried the M14 rifles aboard the Ohio Class Submarines through at least the year 1997 (I transferred off of my last Sub tour in January 1998). It was sometime shortly after I retired (in February 2000) that the M14 rifles were replaced with the M16A3 and (2) M60s were added to the onboard small arms inventory.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 31, 2009
Offline
All my older ex military friends loved the M 14.
November 7, 2015
Offline
I suspect the armorers figured out a way to improve on the M14’s supposed shortcomings. Many of the lessons learned by the rifle teams competing with the Garand surely filtered down to the armorers in the field. I’ve heard only good reports about the M14.
Mike
February 17, 2026
Offline
I was on the drill team in boot camp and we had M-14s. The barrels and receivers were chrome. Really nice looking. That was the last I saw of the M-14s. If I remember correctly, Lt. Col. Anthony Herbert, author of SOLDIER hated the AR16s. The were constantly jamming and causing so many problems in Viet Nam. He wanted to stick with the M-14s. He was on TV back in the 1970s constantly telling about how the Viet Nam war was just something to make money for the politicians. I remember reading he was so upset with the way his men were being butchered and dieing. I had a buddy in the Army a few years ago telling me the 92FS was a piece of junk also. He said the first thing you had to do with on was take sandpaper and sand down and file the clip. He couldn’t get them in and out of the guns. Plus, they were constantly jamming and terrible to use.
April 15, 2005
Offline
James W said
I was on the drill team in boot camp and we had M-14s. The barrels and receivers were chrome. Really nice looking. That was the last I saw of the M-14s. If I remember correctly, Lt. Col. Anthony Herbert, author of SOLDIER hated the AR16s. The were constantly jamming and causing so many problems in Viet Nam. He wanted to stick with the M-14s. He was on TV back in the 1970s constantly telling about how the Viet Nam war was just something to make money for the politicians. I remember reading he was so upset with the way his men were being butchered and dieing. I had a buddy in the Army a few years ago telling me the 92FS was a piece of junk also. He said the first thing you had to do with on was take sandpaper and sand down and file the clip. He couldn’t get them in and out of the guns. Plus, they were constantly jamming and terrible to use.
We carried and used the Beretta M9 pistols with no issues (the 92FS is a commercial pistol). The M9’s most definitely are not “pieces of junk” if properly cared for. That stated, they most certainly are not a M1911A1 (my favorite).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 31, 2009
Offline
If you study the history of military firearms you will find that every change caused a lot of haters. But in most cases the new firearm won out. I’m not saying that there weren’t bugs to be worked out.
December 9, 2002
Offline
Chuck said
If you study the history of military firearms you will find that every change caused a lot of haters. But in most cases the new firearm won out. I’m not saying that there weren’t bugs to be worked out.
Chuck, You make another very good point as I agree with you, and the political side of things seem to enter my mind with these situations over the years also.
Bert,
It’s also nice to hear some of you’re first hand experience, as James and a few other’s have stated!
Tony
1 Guest(s)
