The Right To Bear Arms

[Dubya]

Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about weapons. Here's a clue nimrod, both the FAL AND the HK use peep sights as well. And yes the M-14 uses nearly the exact same action as the Garand, the reciever is basically the same, the gas system the same, the op rod is the only real difference between the two, and the fact the M14 uses a box magazine instead of an en bloc clip. The 7.62 NATO round is around 11% less powerful than the .30-06 and the .308 has almost completely supplanted the .30-06 in virtually all the long range matches. The only time the .30-06 has an edge is when you are comparing military match ammo where the ought six has a definite edge AT 1000 YARDS. If you use the Federal Premium 175 grain Match ammo the advantage disappears.

My AR with the 80 grain VLD is every bit as accurate as your best Super Match set up M1A, so there goes your claim of the AR being inadequate for long range shooting. And no, you don't a fucking thing about any of this. There is no such thing as a "photographic eye" in shooting. Period...it is a photgraphic term dealing with whether you are a natural at framing pictures.

So, in other words...you are a lying sack of horse poo.....provably so. Nice try asshat, you're a fraud just like all you other lib tard trolls.

Show me a modern military rifle that doesn't use that gas system!

Do you shoot peep hole sights at 700 yards with your AR? If you are a good shot, you should be able to get all bullseyes with an AR using peep hole sights at 500 yards, but the shots aren't going to group as closely as an M-14 can do it.

All peep hole sights aren't the same. I like the M-14 peep hole sights and distance/windage adjustments.

No problem. Here is the G3 series. It's not even gas operated. Yes, I shoot IRON sights nimrod. And yes, an AR will beat your M1A (I own an M21 too so know what the M1A is capable of) every day of the week. Your M1A has a glass bedded barrel, the AR has a free floated barrel, huge edge to the AR. Top quality trigger jobs for the M1A cost around 400 dollars. You can buy a DROP IN trigger for the AR that will set you back 150 bucks and is better than the custom trigger job on the M1A, edge AR.

Then you take into account the lack of punishing recoil, the lesser cost of the ammo, and the edge clearly go's to the AR.

The M1A in its best form will give you between 1 and 1.5 MOA (2-2.5 MOA is standard). The AR will do sub MOA all day long with proper barrel and ammo.

Post where I said I have ever had or shot an M1A! You talk about making strawman arguments!

What scoped weapon was that soldier in Iraq using instead of a scoped M-16? Explain why the M-14 was his choice!

 

[Bird]

Yes. Assholes that want to restrict the rights of citizens have come into power. That does not mean we should buckle under. This is NOT a democracy!

There's also a thing called common sense and Americans shouldn't oversimplify. In a democracy, people shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want like drink and drive, commit murder, etc. There is also no need for citizens to stockpile assault rifles in the modern United States due to an outdated amendment. It's extremely dangerous and unnecessary, and needs to be changed.

There are 20,000 gun laws already so I don't see where you get the idea that gun owners can do whatever they please.
Assault rifles are already banned.They fire rapid rounds.
Semi Automatic rifles fire one round at a time, just like any other rifle.
The 2nd amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical or dictatorship type of Government.
When the three branches of Government are not kept separate like is happening now, it then becomes a Government out of control.
The 2nd amendment is the last resort to tyranny.
You should read the Federalist Papers, it makes it very clear as to why we have the 2nd amendment.
What is extremely dangerous is when we have Presidents who think they have the right to be a Monarch like Wilson, Roosevelt and Obama. All Progressives and all who are or were against the Constitution.
By the way, we are a Republic not a Democracy.

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.

I would say that we are both a democracy and a republic... as there is little difference between the two definitions.

 

[Unkotare]

There is also no need for citizens to stockpile assault rifles in the modern United States due to an outdated amendment. It's extremely dangerous and unnecessary, and needs to be changed.

If you are unsatisfied with the US Constitution, go find another place to live with a constitution you like better, because we won't be changing ours to accomodate the likes of you any time soon.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is also no need for citizens to stockpile assault rifles in the modern United States due to an outdated amendment.

you mean the danger of a liberal tyranny has passed??? There are no liberals like Barry who want to expand government forever no matter how much is has already expanded???

 

[westwall]

Show me a modern military rifle that doesn't use that gas system!

Do you shoot peep hole sights at 700 yards with your AR? If you are a good shot, you should be able to get all bullseyes with an AR using peep hole sights at 500 yards, but the shots aren't going to group as closely as an M-14 can do it.

All peep hole sights aren't the same. I like the M-14 peep hole sights and distance/windage adjustments.

No problem. Here is the G3 series. It's not even gas operated. Yes, I shoot IRON sights nimrod. And yes, an AR will beat your M1A (I own an M21 too so know what the M1A is capable of) every day of the week. Your M1A has a glass bedded barrel, the AR has a free floated barrel, huge edge to the AR. Top quality trigger jobs for the M1A cost around 400 dollars. You can buy a DROP IN trigger for the AR that will set you back 150 bucks and is better than the custom trigger job on the M1A, edge AR.

Then you take into account the lack of punishing recoil, the lesser cost of the ammo, and the edge clearly go's to the AR.

The M1A in its best form will give you between 1 and 1.5 MOA (2-2.5 MOA is standard). The AR will do sub MOA all day long with proper barrel and ammo.

Post where I said I have ever had or shot an M1A! You talk about making strawman arguments!

What scoped weapon was that soldier in Iraq using instead of a scoped M-16? Explain why the M-14 was his choice!

The M1A is the same rifle as the M-14 dipshit. The only difference is the M-14 is select fire and as such will never be as accurate as a tuned M1A...I was giving you the best possible performing rifle to try and fulfill your ridiculous claim.

The US Army and Marines are using M-14's.......wait for it....cause it's ALL THEY HAVE moron.

 

[Dubya]

No problem. Here is the G3 series. It's not even gas operated. Yes, I shoot IRON sights nimrod. And yes, an AR will beat your M1A (I own an M21 too so know what the M1A is capable of) every day of the week. Your M1A has a glass bedded barrel, the AR has a free floated barrel, huge edge to the AR. Top quality trigger jobs for the M1A cost around 400 dollars. You can buy a DROP IN trigger for the AR that will set you back 150 bucks and is better than the custom trigger job on the M1A, edge AR.

Then you take into account the lack of punishing recoil, the lesser cost of the ammo, and the edge clearly go's to the AR.

The M1A in its best form will give you between 1 and 1.5 MOA (2-2.5 MOA is standard). The AR will do sub MOA all day long with proper barrel and ammo.

Post where I said I have ever had or shot an M1A! You talk about making strawman arguments!

What scoped weapon was that soldier in Iraq using instead of a scoped M-16? Explain why the M-14 was his choice!

The M1A is the same rifle as the M-14 dipshit. The only difference is the M-14 is select fire and as such will never be as accurate as a tuned M1A...I was giving you the best possible performing rifle to try and fulfill your ridiculous claim.

The US Army and Marines are using M-14's.......wait for it....cause it's ALL THEY HAVE moron.

You are full of shit and soldiers who can shoot will take an M-14 over an M-16 or an AR-15. The photos of the two rifles show they aren't the same. How many parts of an M1A could be used on an M-14?

 

[P@triot]

Guess we need to outlaw nicotine and shovels:

He and Morgan Mengel tried to poison her husband by spiking a juice drink with liquid nicotine, prosecutors said, and when that failed, he used company shovels to bludgeon his boss to death at the West Goshen Township firm.

Woman admits role in murder

Now this one is a real predicament. Not only to we have to outlaw knives, but we also have to outlaw anything can be used to "smother" (geez - pillows, sheets, clothing - we're all going to be NAKED, blankets, and literally millions and millions of other items):

A Teaneck man accused of stabbing his girlfriend to death and smothering her 5-year-old daughter

Man accused of slaying Englewood mom, young daughter pleads not guilty | NJ.com


Oh My God!!! Do you realize what this means?!? We are going to have to outlaw hands for all human beings. Every person born will have to have their hands amputated. But wait a second, how will the physicians amputate when they won't have any hands?!? Damn, this is a real conundrum!

A 53-year-old man was arrested Tuesday in the strangulation of a woman whose body was found at a Third Ward house over the weekend

Man charged with murder in woman's strangulation - Houston Chronicle

 

[Dubya]

Guess we need to outlaw nicotine and shovels:

He and Morgan Mengel tried to poison her husband by spiking a juice drink with liquid nicotine, prosecutors said, and when that failed, he used company shovels to bludgeon his boss to death at the West Goshen Township firm.

Woman admits role in murder

Now this one is a real predicament. Not only to we have to outlaw knives, but we also have to outlaw anything can be used to "smother" (geez - pillows, sheets, clothing - we're all going to be NAKED, blankets, and literally millions and millions of other items):

A Teaneck man accused of stabbing his girlfriend to death and smothering her 5-year-old daughter

Man accused of slaying Englewood mom, young daughter pleads not guilty | NJ.com


Oh My God!!! Do you realize what this means?!? We are going to have to outlaw hands for all human beings. Every person born will have to have their hands amputated. But wait a second, how will the physicians amputate when they won't have any hands?!? Damn, this is a real conundrum!

A 53-year-old man was arrested Tuesday in the strangulation of a woman whose body was found at a Third Ward house over the weekend

Man charged with murder in woman's strangulation - Houston Chronicle

No, we need gun regulations, fool, and less fools in our country!

 

[westwall]

Post where I said I have ever had or shot an M1A! You talk about making strawman arguments!

What scoped weapon was that soldier in Iraq using instead of a scoped M-16? Explain why the M-14 was his choice!

The M1A is the same rifle as the M-14 dipshit. The only difference is the M-14 is select fire and as such will never be as accurate as a tuned M1A...I was giving you the best possible performing rifle to try and fulfill your ridiculous claim.

The US Army and Marines are using M-14's.......wait for it....cause it's ALL THEY HAVE moron.

You are full of shit and soldiers who can shoot will take an M-14 over an M-16 or an AR-15. The photos of the two rifles show they aren't the same. How many parts of an M1A could be used on an M-14?

All of them, except for the receiver, which doesn't have the lug for the selectfire lever asshat. You really don't know shit from shinola do you... Here are TWO pictures for you, one a M-14 the other an M1A, can you tell the difference? The THIRD picture is what they would rather have....Notice the family resemblance? The problem is cost, the SR-25 costs around 3k and the military has the M-14 in stock.

Understand the diff?

 

[westwall]

Guess we need to outlaw nicotine and shovels:

He and Morgan Mengel tried to poison her husband by spiking a juice drink with liquid nicotine, prosecutors said, and when that failed, he used company shovels to bludgeon his boss to death at the West Goshen Township firm.

Woman admits role in murder

Now this one is a real predicament. Not only to we have to outlaw knives, but we also have to outlaw anything can be used to "smother" (geez - pillows, sheets, clothing - we're all going to be NAKED, blankets, and literally millions and millions of other items):

A Teaneck man accused of stabbing his girlfriend to death and smothering her 5-year-old daughter

Man accused of slaying Englewood mom, young daughter pleads not guilty | NJ.com


Oh My God!!! Do you realize what this means?!? We are going to have to outlaw hands for all human beings. Every person born will have to have their hands amputated. But wait a second, how will the physicians amputate when they won't have any hands?!? Damn, this is a real conundrum!

A 53-year-old man was arrested Tuesday in the strangulation of a woman whose body was found at a Third Ward house over the weekend

Man charged with murder in woman's strangulation - Houston Chronicle

No, we need gun regulations, fool, and less fools in our country!

AMEN BROTHA! When do you leave? Go to some other country that has all the laws you like, and stay the fuck there. Leave us alone.

 

[Dubya]

The M1A is the same rifle as the M-14 dipshit. The only difference is the M-14 is select fire and as such will never be as accurate as a tuned M1A...I was giving you the best possible performing rifle to try and fulfill your ridiculous claim.

The US Army and Marines are using M-14's.......wait for it....cause it's ALL THEY HAVE moron.

You are full of shit and soldiers who can shoot will take an M-14 over an M-16 or an AR-15. The photos of the two rifles show they aren't the same. How many parts of an M1A could be used on an M-14?

All of them, except for the receiver, which doesn't have the lug for the selectfire lever asshat. You really don't know shit from shinola do you... Here are TWO pictures for you, one a M-14 the other an M1A, can you tell the difference? The THIRD picture is what they would rather have....Notice the family resemblance? The problem is cost, the SR-25 costs around 3k and the military has the M-14 in stock.

Understand the diff?

You changed the M1 Garand to the M1A, so I'll keep it that way.

Why because you say so?

You can't see the difference in how the two different barrels vent gas at different places and all those parts involved?
You can't see the difference in that clip and a magazine?
You can't see the difference in the front sight?
You can't see the difference in the length of the stock?
You can't see the difference in the hand guard?

I haven't personally examined the interior an M1A, but from the looks of it, you may get a bolt, rear sight, two sling swivels, operating rod and trigger assembly and then again you may not get all those parts. The M1A vents further along the barrel, so the operating rod might have had to been longer to keep the piston from having to travel so far. It's possible the trigger assembly could be the same or modified to work, but many of the parts in it would be the same. I doubt if they changed slings enough to make the part change or the bolt and rear sights had to change much, though the rear sight is different. That isn't a lot of parts and the remaining parts is nearly the whole weapon.

 

[Unkotare]

No, we need gun regulations, fool, and less fools in our country!

Why don't you lead by example and get the fuck out? You're anti-American anyway.

 

[P@triot]

Assault rifles are already banned.They fire rapid rounds.

Uh....what?

I have a friend who purchased a fully-automatic uzi with a silencer, just over a year ago.

He did have to submit papers to the ATF, and it took them forever and a day to approve the sale, but the sale did occur and it was 100% legal. Around that same time, I seriously considered purchasing the very bad-ass fully automatic Barrett M468 from a licensed dealer (a different one from where my buddy had purchased the uzi).

Where in the world did you get that "assault weapons" are banned?

The 2nd amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical or dictatorship type of Government.

True. 100% accurate here

When the three branches of Government are not kept separate like is happening now, it then becomes a Government out of control.

True again. 100% accurate here as well

The 2nd amendment is the last resort to tyranny.

True again. 100% accurate here as well

You should read the Federalist Papers, it makes it very clear as to why we have the 2nd amendment.

True again. 100% accurate here as well

What is extremely dangerous is when we have Presidents who think they have the right to be a Monarch like Wilson, Roosevelt and Obama. All Progressives and all who are or were against the Constitution.

True again. 100% accurate here as well

By the way, we are a Republic not a Democracy.

True again. 100% accurate here as well

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.

I would say that we are both a democracy and a republic... as there is little difference between the two definitions.

Doh! You were doing so well. Here the streak is broken. A Republic is not a "government in which the country is considered a public matter" (hell, that would essentially apply to 100% of the world, including communisms, socialisms, etc.)

A Republic is a form of government in which people elect representatives to make votes on their behalf. A true Democracy is a form of government in which the people make their own votes. A Republic is better because there is no way a person could work a real job, take care of a family, and still be perfectly informed on four-hundred different 2,000 page bills to make an informed vote on them (hence hiring a representative to do it for you). Additionally, a true Democracy leads to "mob rule". If 50.00001% of the country decided that it's ok to hang black people in a Democracy, that's what you end up with. In a Republic, the power gets divided exponentially more evenly between the majority and the minority, helping to ensure less tyranny and radical principles. A Republic and a Democracy are significantly different.

 

[P@triot]

Guess we need to outlaw nicotine and shovels:

He and Morgan Mengel tried to poison her husband by spiking a juice drink with liquid nicotine, prosecutors said, and when that failed, he used company shovels to bludgeon his boss to death at the West Goshen Township firm.

Woman admits role in murder

Now this one is a real predicament. Not only to we have to outlaw knives, but we also have to outlaw anything can be used to "smother" (geez - pillows, sheets, clothing - we're all going to be NAKED, blankets, and literally millions and millions of other items):

A Teaneck man accused of stabbing his girlfriend to death and smothering her 5-year-old daughter

Man accused of slaying Englewood mom, young daughter pleads not guilty | NJ.com


Oh My God!!! Do you realize what this means?!? We are going to have to outlaw hands for all human beings. Every person born will have to have their hands amputated. But wait a second, how will the physicians amputate when they won't have any hands?!? Damn, this is a real conundrum!

A 53-year-old man was arrested Tuesday in the strangulation of a woman whose body was found at a Third Ward house over the weekend

Man charged with murder in woman's strangulation - Houston Chronicle

No, we need gun regulations, fool, and less fools in our country!

Oh, I see what you're saying you irrational wing-nut! You're basically saying you could give a shit if people die. However, since you've never so much as HELD a gun in your life, and have been brainwashed to hate them, you want to see an inanimate object banned.

Ok. Gotcha! Now I'm on the same page as you (understand - I don't agree, but I finally found the irrational, uneducated, wing-nut page you've landed on).

 

[P@triot]

Guess we need to outlaw nicotine and shovels:

He and Morgan Mengel tried to poison her husband by spiking a juice drink with liquid nicotine, prosecutors said, and when that failed, he used company shovels to bludgeon his boss to death at the West Goshen Township firm.

Woman admits role in murder

Now this one is a real predicament. Not only to we have to outlaw knives, but we also have to outlaw anything can be used to "smother" (geez - pillows, sheets, clothing - we're all going to be NAKED, blankets, and literally millions and millions of other items):

A Teaneck man accused of stabbing his girlfriend to death and smothering her 5-year-old daughter

Man accused of slaying Englewood mom, young daughter pleads not guilty | NJ.com


Oh My God!!! Do you realize what this means?!? We are going to have to outlaw hands for all human beings. Every person born will have to have their hands amputated. But wait a second, how will the physicians amputate when they won't have any hands?!? Damn, this is a real conundrum!

A 53-year-old man was arrested Tuesday in the strangulation of a woman whose body was found at a Third Ward house over the weekend

Man charged with murder in woman's strangulation - Houston Chronicle

No, we need gun regulations, fool, and less fools in our country!

Would you please expand on your answer and explain to us why it is perfectly acceptable in your warped mind to strangle a women to death (a very slow, painful, torturous, and personal way to kill/die), but not ok to shoot a woman to death (quick and painless)?

Do you hate women, as I suspect, and like to punish and make them suffer?

 

[g5000]

Register gun buyers, not guns. Run it just like voter registration. You register as a voter, you register as a gun buyer.

The government verifies you are eligible to vote, the government verifies you are eligible to buy guns.

You are free to vote or not vote after you register, you are free to buy a gun or not buy a gun after you register.

The burden of maintaining an accurate eligible registered voter list is on the government, the burden of maintaining an accurate eligible registered gun buyer list is on the government.

You show up to vote, if your name is on the list, then you vote; you show up to buy a gun, if your name is on the list, then you buy a gun.

When you vote, you vote for as many or as few offices and initiatives and measures as you wish, and the government does not know who or what you voted for; when you buy guns, you buy as many or as few as you wish, and the government does not know what you bought.


Problem solved.


Or you can be a totalitarian wannabe dickhead, like this:

To hell with freedom. "Prove you need this" is the new bar which must be cleared. You must justify a need before being able to exercise your allegedly inalienable rights.

The "prove you need this" standard should be applied consistently. For instance, you do not need porn any more than you need an AR-15. So we must let the religious people have their way and ban porn. Porn kills.

Our founding fathers were not able to foresee porn DVDs. They absolutely have to go.



You want to be a totalitarian fuck? Then do it right!


NEXT!!!

 

[westwall]

You are full of shit and soldiers who can shoot will take an M-14 over an M-16 or an AR-15. The photos of the two rifles show they aren't the same. How many parts of an M1A could be used on an M-14?

All of them, except for the receiver, which doesn't have the lug for the selectfire lever asshat. You really don't know shit from shinola do you... Here are TWO pictures for you, one a M-14 the other an M1A, can you tell the difference? The THIRD picture is what they would rather have....Notice the family resemblance? The problem is cost, the SR-25 costs around 3k and the military has the M-14 in stock.

Understand the diff?

You changed the M1 Garand to the M1A, so I'll keep it that way.

Why because you say so?

You can't see the difference in how the two different barrels vent gas at different places and all those parts involved?
You can't see the difference in that clip and a magazine?
You can't see the difference in the front sight?
You can't see the difference in the length of the stock?
You can't see the difference in the hand guard?

I haven't personally examined the interior an M1A, but from the looks of it, you may get a bolt, rear sight, two sling swivels, operating rod and trigger assembly and then again you may not get all those parts. The M1A vents further along the barrel, so the operating rod might have had to been longer to keep the piston from having to travel so far. It's possible the trigger assembly could be the same or modified to work, but many of the parts in it would be the same. I doubt if they changed slings enough to make the part change or the bolt and rear sights had to change much, though the rear sight is different. That isn't a lot of parts and the remaining parts is nearly the whole weapon.

Nice try dummy, I clearly stated that the M-14 was merely a improved M1 Garand, and the side by side pictures show that quite clearly. If you want we can go to the Italian BM-59 which is....yes you guessed it a M1 Garand retrofitted to a box magazine set up. Below is a picture of one of those and it uses everything from the receiver back, they modified the barrel and gas system but once again, it is a modified garand. And you think that it is is as good as the G3 or the FAL which is a joke.

The M-14 is a dinosaur, it is used because that's all they have, they would prefer a modern weapon instead of an UPDATED WORLD WAR TWO rifle.

 

[Dubya]

All of them, except for the receiver, which doesn't have the lug for the selectfire lever asshat. You really don't know shit from shinola do you... Here are TWO pictures for you, one a M-14 the other an M1A, can you tell the difference? The THIRD picture is what they would rather have....Notice the family resemblance? The problem is cost, the SR-25 costs around 3k and the military has the M-14 in stock.

Understand the diff?

You changed the M1 Garand to the M1A, so I'll keep it that way.

Why because you say so?

You can't see the difference in how the two different barrels vent gas at different places and all those parts involved?
You can't see the difference in that clip and a magazine?
You can't see the difference in the front sight?
You can't see the difference in the length of the stock?
You can't see the difference in the hand guard?

I haven't personally examined the interior an M1A, but from the looks of it, you may get a bolt, rear sight, two sling swivels, operating rod and trigger assembly and then again you may not get all those parts. The M1A vents further along the barrel, so the operating rod might have had to been longer to keep the piston from having to travel so far. It's possible the trigger assembly could be the same or modified to work, but many of the parts in it would be the same. I doubt if they changed slings enough to make the part change or the bolt and rear sights had to change much, though the rear sight is different. That isn't a lot of parts and the remaining parts is nearly the whole weapon.

Nice try dummy, I clearly stated that the M-14 was merely a improved M1 Garand, and the side by side pictures show that quite clearly. If you want we can go to the Italian BM-59 which is....yes you guessed it a M1 Garand retrofitted to a box magazine set up. Below is a picture of one of those and it uses everything from the receiver back, they modified the barrel and gas system but once again, it is a modified garand. And you think that it is is as good as the G3 or the FAL which is a joke.

The M-14 is a dinosaur, it is used because that's all they have, they would prefer a modern weapon instead of an UPDATED WORLD WAR TWO rifle.

The M-14 is much better at 500+ yards than the M-16. At 500 yards in boot camp, I shot bullseye every shot and they bunched around the heart.

To exchange parts, you may be able to use the trigger assembly and I'm fairly sure you could use the bolt without major modification. I think the trigger assembly would have to be modified, but the inner parts should be about the same.

The M-14 has very few parts that can be interchanged with the Garand. The concept is basically the same, but that can be said of many similar weapons. The M-14 was designed to replace the BAR and the M1 Garand. Both weapons have an operating rod that is curved to to fit down in the gas cylinder with a spring connected to a gas piston, but the distances to where gas is vented and the length of the gas cylinder are very different between the two weapons. The operating rod is connected to the bolt that rolls and rotates when the weapon is fired or the operating rod is pulled back by the operating rod handle. I think it would take more than a longer spring to make up for the differences in the length of the gas cylinders. It would be my guess that the part of the operating rod that fit into the gas cylinder for the Garand would be longer than the similar part of the operating rod on the M-14. I say part, but it's all a single piece. If that's the case and it is longer, it may be possible to cut down and mill the part of the operating rod that fits into the gas cylinder and make the part out of a Garand part. Like I said, I've never disassembled a Garand, put I've disassembed and assembled M-14s blindfolded, so I know the possibilities of how the gas cylinder could be shortened in the M-14. Besides changing the vents for gas, I think it would require more than a different size spring to make it function.

The M-14 could be equipped with a bipod that connected to the area where there is a gap between the barrel and the gas cylinder. It had a hinged butt plate that would flip up allowing the weapon to rest on the soldier's shoulder. When switched to auto, that allowed the weapon to rest on the bipod and soldier's shoulder without being held. In that position it was ready to perform like a 20 round BAR giving quick and powerful auto bursts, using the same ammo as the M-60 machine gun. With enough magazines and ammo, that's a lot of knockdown firepower from a platoon size of soldiers. Human waves could only get through once the barrels started melting down. The M-14 was also equipped with a flash suppressor and the Garand wasn't.

It's the larger, heavier bullet that makes the M-14 more accurate. With about two and a half times the weight, the bullet varies less with windage compared to an M-16 and windage is the hardest thing to esitmate. The long range ammo for the M-14 is 174 gr compared to 63 gr for the M-16. The added weight more than compensates for the slower speed and that's why the first sniper rifles were modified M-14s. There are various ammo types and the maximum energy is 3,526 J for the 7.62×51mm NATO and 1,796 J for the 5.56×45mm NATO. That's a big difference in the energy of those bullets.

 

[westwall]

You changed the M1 Garand to the M1A, so I'll keep it that way.

Why because you say so?

You can't see the difference in how the two different barrels vent gas at different places and all those parts involved?
You can't see the difference in that clip and a magazine?
You can't see the difference in the front sight?
You can't see the difference in the length of the stock?
You can't see the difference in the hand guard?

I haven't personally examined the interior an M1A, but from the looks of it, you may get a bolt, rear sight, two sling swivels, operating rod and trigger assembly and then again you may not get all those parts. The M1A vents further along the barrel, so the operating rod might have had to been longer to keep the piston from having to travel so far. It's possible the trigger assembly could be the same or modified to work, but many of the parts in it would be the same. I doubt if they changed slings enough to make the part change or the bolt and rear sights had to change much, though the rear sight is different. That isn't a lot of parts and the remaining parts is nearly the whole weapon.

Nice try dummy, I clearly stated that the M-14 was merely a improved M1 Garand, and the side by side pictures show that quite clearly. If you want we can go to the Italian BM-59 which is....yes you guessed it a M1 Garand retrofitted to a box magazine set up. Below is a picture of one of those and it uses everything from the receiver back, they modified the barrel and gas system but once again, it is a modified garand. And you think that it is is as good as the G3 or the FAL which is a joke.

The M-14 is a dinosaur, it is used because that's all they have, they would prefer a modern weapon instead of an UPDATED WORLD WAR TWO rifle.

The M-14 is much better at 500+ yards than the M-16. At 500 yards in boot camp, I shot bullseye every shot and they bunched around the heart.

To exchange parts, you may be able to use the trigger assembly and I'm fairly sure you could use the bolt without major modification. I think the trigger assembly would have to be modified, but the inner parts should be about the same.

The M-14 has very few parts that can be interchanged with the Garand. The concept is basically the same, but that can be said of many similar weapons. The M-14 was designed to replace the BAR and the M1 Garand. Both weapons have an operating rod that is curved to to fit down in the gas cylinder with a spring connected to a gas piston, but the distances to where gas is vented and the length of the gas cylinder are very different between the two weapons. The operating rod is connected to the bolt that rolls and rotates when the weapon is fired or the operating rod is pulled back by the operating rod handle. I think it would take more than a longer spring to make up for the differences in the length of the gas cylinders. It would be my guess that the part of the operating rod that fit into the gas cylinder for the Garand would be longer than the similar part of the operating rod on the M-14. I say part, but it's all a single piece. If that's the case and it is longer, it may be possible to cut down and mill the part of the operating rod that fits into the gas cylinder and make the part out of a Garand part. Like I said, I've never disassembled a Garand, put I've disassembed and assembled M-14s blindfolded, so I know the possibilities of how the gas cylinder could be shortened in the M-14. Besides changing the vents for gas, I think it would require more than a different size spring to make it function.

The M-14 could be equipped with a bipod that connected to the area where there is a gap between the barrel and the gas cylinder. It had a hinged butt plate that would flip up allowing the weapon to rest on the soldier's shoulder. When switched to auto, that allowed the weapon to rest on the bipod and soldier's shoulder without being held. In that position it was ready to perform like a 20 round BAR giving quick and powerful auto bursts, using the same ammo as the M-60 machine gun. With enough magazines and ammo, that's a lot of knockdown firepower from a platoon size of soldiers. Human waves could only get through once the barrels started melting down. The M-14 was also equipped with a flash suppressor and the Garand wasn't.

It's the larger, heavier bullet that makes the M-14 more accurate. With about two and a half times the weight, the bullet varies less with windage compared to an M-16 and windage is the hardest thing to esitmate. The long range ammo for the M-14 is 174 gr compared to 63 gr for the M-16. The added weight more than compensates for the slower speed and that's why the first sniper rifles were modified M-14s. There are various ammo types and the maximum energy is 3,526 J for the 7.62×51mm NATO and 1,796 J for the 5.56×45mm NATO. That's a big difference in the energy of those bullets.

BS. What type target did you qualify on? What ranges did you shoot and what positions for the various ranges? What firing rates did you use? How many rounds did you expend per position?

Bullet weight does not make a particular cartridge more accurate. Any first year shooter knows that. One of the most accurate rifles in the world is the 6.5X55 Swede and it uses anywhere from a 108 grain all the way up to a 140 grain bullet. It has an absurdly high BC and THAT'S what makes it so accurate. Not the weight of the bullet.

The M-14 on full auto is completely uncontrollabe. It is nowhere near what a BAR is (I've owned both) the BAR weighs 10 pounds more than the M-14 and fires at a slower ROF. Placing the bipod on the gas tube in that location will dirrectly imping on teh barrel (a total no no if you knew anything) which further reduces your accuracy.

I'm going to give you some advice, never try and bullshit your way around people who know firearms, we know very well what you do and don't know...and you don't know shit.

BTW, below is my M21. Unlike you I actually have the things I claim to have.

 

[PaulS1950]

The "first" sniper rifles were "modified M-14s" ??
In WWII sniper rifles were the 03A3 Springfield with a trigger job and a scope. And since that time there have been many sniper rifles and most have been bolt action rifles - not the semi-autos.