The M14 wasn't made commercially because no-one wanted to buy it. The USA certainly hoped to sell the M14, but they took so long over its development (and even then had so many production problems that Macnamara closed down the Springfield Armory) that it missed any chance it might have had.

So the international sales league for 7.62x51 battle rifles goes:

FN FAL - 1st
G3 - 2nd (not too far behind)
M14 - nowhere.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

Ignorance is bliss, eh! The M14 was made obsolete and then given away, just like everyone has said. In the late 1930s / 1940s it's operating system was "state of the art". By the 50s it was an obsolete system with some significant defficiencies when compared to the competition.

There is no use wasting bandwidth explaining the defficiencies. They are well documented. Visit with anyone that tweaks the M14/M1A for target shooting. They can start the ball rolling for you.

Having said that I would still take an M14 over the M16 any day!

Scott

Is the M-14s gas operating system really obsolete? It is isn't the same as the '30s/'40s era Garand. The gas piston and tilting bolt of the FN goes back to the '30s/'40s as well. Nearly ditto for the roller-delay of HKs. Both the FN and HK operating systems, and even Stoners 'modern' direct impingement system have been made obsolete by the return of the rotating bolt and gas piston of the SA-80 and G-36 / M-8.

The layout, construction and manufacturing of the M-14 may obsolete, but the gas system is still valid.

BTW, just because tweaking a battle rifle for target shooting may be problematic doesn't mean an operating system should should be written off as an effective SHTF rifle.

Sir,

You contradict yourself. First you say that the M14 isn't obsolete then you go ahead and say it is. The gas system is only a portion of the operating system of the rifle. The G3 roller delay blow back action is from the 50s, the tilting lock of the FAL is late 30s, then finally developed and mass produced in the late 40s /early 50s. The M14 was, and still is, a cobbled design. It is basically a "short" action Garand with a detachable magazine. It is not on par with either the FAL or G3. Even though, I still am very fond of the M14, adn prefer it BIG time to the G3. It is kinda like that Dirty Harry line, 'a man's gotta know his limitations'. The M14 / M1A is what it is, no more, no less. All the 7.62X51 NATO battle rifles are prohibitively heavy (as is their ammo) when compared to any of the 5.56X45 NATO assault rifles.

By the way, the direct gas impingement, rotating bolt operating system of Stoner's AR15 / M16 was borrowed from the French MAS. Stoner's great advances did not come in the arena of operating system, but in materials (namely polymers and aluminum). It is said his materials expertise was garnered from the aerospace industry in which he worked (he as an employee of Fairchild as I recall).

Scott

A couple of points...

Quote:

---

The G3 roller delay blow back action is from the 50s [snip] By the way, the direct gas impingement, rotating bolt operating system of Stoner's AR15 / M16 was borrowed from the French MAS.

---

The G3's system came from the Mauser StG.45 of late WW2, development of which was continued postwar by CETME in Spain, before going back to Germany again. The direct gas system was used in the Swedish Ljungmann rifle of 1942.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Thank you Tony. As i said before HK91/G3.

Tony,

Of course you are correct. I had forgotten about the Swede.
Using Tony's approach, ie when a system started development, the Garand would date from the 20s. Anyway you cut it, the M14 is outdated, or is it?

So, why is the G3 better again? I will give you that it kicks the hardest of any of them, if that counts for anything.

Scott

The HK series of guns, G3, MP5 etc have the simplest & best operating system.

Well, 'best' has to be arguable, given that HK themselves have given up the roller-locked retarded blowback and gone for a conventional gas-operated system for their latest design, the G36. I'm not sure how the costs compare; in principle the G3 is mechanically simpler but that roller-locking system can't be cheap to machine to the necessary standards.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

i did my military service with both FAL and FNC. While FNC is easier to shoot, the FAL was MUCH more reliable... and solid, it wouldn't jam - and it was also lighter than FNC (empty, of course) A nice rifle, easy to shoot, and totally reliable in the most adverse conditions. I also shot the SAFN, truely gorgeous quality, very accurate, but also quite a bit heavier. But as I am a single-shot guy...