I have tried to post this damned message three times, and every time I managed to delete it or crash my browser, so here we go again. HEY!! If I hear anyone else laughing, I'm gonna go over there and thump you!!!!!

Now Cadet Seaman of the Strange Slogans stated for posterity: "Crap, sorry I miss read the article. It was M14, M14NM and M21."

OK, so now, it seems that the number of spinoffs has become important to determining the quality of a weapon, so let's do another comparison:

M-14: three spinoffs, in limited use in one country, no foreign buyers, out of production for more than 30 years.

FN-FAL For practical reasons, I will not include the different national versions of the rifle, as it would probably go into the high 50's and I don't feel like doing the research. So I'll tell you what I know. the following countries had different versions of the FN-FAL: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, (had 3) Britain (2) Canada, (3) Israel, and if you do a bit of research, you'll find many more. The most popular versions were the FAL, the FN-HB (LMG) and the FN-PARA. Some countries also modified the rifle to provide their troops with sniper versions. Number of spinoffs: I have talked about 11 in this post.
The FAL is still in use with many countries, and I often hear that it is still in production in South America

The G-3: The G-3 spun off the entire MP-5 series, which is the most successful submachinegun in history, and at the current time HK is offering 7 different versions of the gun. There is also the G-53 series, which IIRC, had 3 different versions. (they were 5.56 versions of the G-3, and the basic version is still offered by HK) As well, there is the HK-21e, which is a belt-fed LMG based on the G-3 design. There are 2 sniper rifles, the MSG-90A1, and the PSG-1, which is considered by many to be the best semi-automatic sniper rifle ever. (I disagree, but I won't go there... unless someone asks me to.)
The G-3 itself was also modified by many different countries, but again, I stick to what I have here, we have 14 different spin-offs, ALL of which are in use in many different countries, and many of which are in production.

I did a bit more research, and I found 23 versions of the MP-5 that have been produced.

So, again, I will ask, why do you say that the M-14 is best magazine fed 7.62 rifle, period?

(And I still haven't talked about the US Army adoption trials!!)

Dean.

Battle rifles were outdated, period. M-14, FAL, G3, all of them, needed to be replaced, and, except in very limited uses, have been phased out. Why are you arguing about it? No question, they were all good weapons.

Dean, I would say the M-14 is the best from personal experience. Completely subjective opinion for the most part bruv. I hate the M-16 but then I only worked with the version through A2 and I guess there have been two more evolutions since then and I have never fired an M-4. I like knock-down power and the energy of the M-14 round is far superior to any ballistics I have seen from any 5.56 round, no offense intended to your lover Luis. When I carried a pistol in civilian life I carried a S&W .40 for the same reason, the physics of mass times velocity showed the .40 caliber round the best possible round in terms of overall lethality and the weapon only had 21 moving parts- fewer parts=fewer chances for Mr Murphy to muck something up. The M-14 is similar in simplicity. The simpler the weapon system the fewer foul-ups and the easier to maintain. And I prefer the heavy weight of the weapon for one simple reason, if I strike you with the M-16 it will not hurt as much as if I strike you with the M-14. I am not a physicist but I do understand just enough physics when it comes to Mass X Velocity = Energy/Force and that's why I like the darn rifle.

wad about AK74? Heard lots og people said it is a bad gun

I realize that a lot of people LOVE the M-14. Had it been designed and fielded during WW II, I would have loved it too. But it was not, and as a result, it was a battle rifle adopted by one country for about 20 years. At the same time, there were other, better choices, but unfortunately very few people in this forum have used them, so many people still wax nostalgically about the M-14. I just get tired of hearing it, and when I saw Cadet Seaman's note, I saw red... again. So rather than just taking it, I decided to argue the point that there are other 7.62 battle rifles out there, and that some of them are better. Looking back, it was a bit off-topic, and I apologise to all for that.

Someone other than Dean.

Actually I think it was quite valid and you raise some good questions.

We just need a good strong 7.62 XM-8 type weapon.

7.62 is a bad choice...most modern body armor will deflect a short assault rifle variant, while the full-size round has too much recoil to be fired on full-automatic. An intermediate round, like the 6.8mm, is quite possibly the way to go in this case, if the 5.56 must be replaced.

With a 7.62 round even with body armour on you will knock down and temporarily remove an enemy from the fight. Its not like the movies where you get hit and shrug it off while Arnold provides cover firing a .50 cal from the hip as you storm the palace to rescue Ms. Big Lips Jolie.

As for firing on full automatic, why would you do this when there are squad weapons intended for this purpose. Semi-auto with a quick finger is ALWAYS more accurate.

The science of ballistics has not made some quantum leap in the last 50 years. The principles are still the same. Why would you say that the weapons are outdated?

Originally Posted by c/Commander

7.62 is a bad choice...most modern body armor will deflect a short assault rifle variant, while the full-size round has too much recoil to be fired on full-automatic. An intermediate round, like the 6.8mm, is quite possibly the way to go in this case, if the 5.56 must be replaced.

Do what? Whats the "Short Assault Rifle varient"? the 7.62X39? Hate to tell you this but most modern body armor outside of special purpose bunker shields and entry vests will not deflect a 7.62 Nato or a 7.62 X 39 round.