AR-15 vs M1A (and MAS 46/59) mud and sand tests

[Spartan198]

The results kind of surprised me. The AR-15 showed to be the most reliable of the rifles tested. So much for the M14/M1A's legendary reliability, with it unable to fire even one round without jamming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYfGq1yk66Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrPjlcJ3rtY&t

I'm curious as to people's thoughts here. I'm not posting this to demean or discredit the M14, I'm just legitimately surprised by the result. I honestly expected more from the M1A.

[Excalibur]

I think the M14's performance since it is a relative of the M1 Garand system has been exaggerated just like the M1 was. Like any weapon, you get it too dirty and it can fail.

[Evil Tim]

I have a feeling that rail over the action of the M1A wasn't helping much.

Then again, this is why during WW2 they issued soldiers with gigantic condoms to put over their rifles to protect them from this kind of thing, leading to that almost-certainly-untrue story about Winston Churchill ordering for them to be labelled "medium" to frighten the Germans.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

I think the M14's performance since it is a relative of the M1 Garand system has been exaggerated just like the M1 was. Like any weapon, you get it too dirty and it can fail.

TFB had a really good, critical post on the Garand (and, by extension, the M14). There’s a lot of criticism of the gas system and exposure of the action:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.thefi...m1-garand/amp/

On another note: I think it’s easy for Americans to deify the primary service weapon of wars that we won, and hold corresponding negative views of service rifles used in wars we lost. This is why the M1 is held in such high regard, while the early M16s (used in Vietnam) are derided as garbage, for instance. I think there’s a weird psychological tendency to associate outcomes of wars with the quality of the main weapons used by the grunts in those wars.

[Evil Tim]

Originally Posted by MT2008

On another note: I think it’s easy for Americans to deify the primary service weapon of wars that we won, and hold corresponding negative views of service rifles used in wars we lost. This is why the M1 is held in such high regard, while the early M16s (used in Vietnam) are derided as garbage, for instance. I think there’s a weird psychological tendency to associate outcomes of wars with the quality of the main weapons used by the grunts in those wars.

Naw, that doesn't work because there's documentation of people deriding the early M16s as garbage during the Vietnam War, so unless they could see the future there can't be that kind of connection.

[Excalibur]

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

Naw, that doesn't work because there's documentation of people deriding the early M16s as garbage during the Vietnam War, so unless they could see the future there can't be that kind of connection.

I think it means that first impressions for troops is key to a good reputation.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

Naw, that doesn't work because there's documentation of people deriding the early M16s as garbage during the Vietnam War, so unless they could see the future there can't be that kind of connection.

Oh, I recognize that (I know that the nickname “Mattel toy rifle” originated during, not after, the war), but it often seems as though the negative post-war reputation for those early M16s was disproportionate relative to the scope of the problems and the length of time it took to resolve them. Even amongst people who never served in Vietnam.

[Excalibur]

I think that's how all guns get their reputation from 3rd hand accounts that becomes legend.

How revolvers, despite their obvious downsides, are heralded as unjammable people stoppers. Or how AKs are the most reliable rifles in the world, etc


We got 1911s vs everything, and it goes on

[Evil Tim]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Oh, I recognize that (I know that the nickname “Mattel toy rifle” originated during, not after, the war), but it often seems as though the negative post-war reputation for those early M16s was disproportionate relative to the scope of the problems and the length of time it took to resolve them. Even amongst people who never served in Vietnam.

It's more likely to be because of the same switch in how information was reported to the people back home that caused the extremely negative reception of the war itself, I'd imagine.

Mind you, apparently the North Vietnamese thought the AK was a piece of junk and wished they could get those high-tech Yankee rifles instead.