>>64384292
The M14 is a great topic for determining who has significant experience with it and who gets their information from guntubers that don't have significant experience with it. Before you get angry with me for sharing observations that you've never heard before, ask yourself why your chosen experts don't discuss any of this stuff. It may that they're full of shit, and in that case you should be angry at them.
>>64386231
As received from Crane =/= worked at Crane. We're discussing a military rifle here, not your project in your garage. Reading comprehension, my man. I didn't work at Crane, I just had to deal with the shit that I received from them. And they're not the ones that built the rifles like this. SA, Winchester, and TRW did, and it's not their fault (well, it's SA's fault) that a constant zero relied upon, in part, a small dovetailed part staying secured by a small screw on the end of a piece of metal that changes temperature constantly, gets whipped around each time that it's used, and experiences occasional jolts against objects when taken into the field, or even carried around on sentry duty for that matter. It was a bad design.
Forget for a moment about why you would think it necessary to stake the sights in place on a service rifle that's supposedly good to go in combat, as ridiculous as that is. Let's instead take a moment to consider the ramifications of doing this in a military context. It's okay to admit that you're out of your depth here. I'll explain it if need be. The obvious answer is, "You have documents and procedures that explain what you are and are not allowed to do with Uncle Sam's equipment, and deviating from this can result in penalties up to and including losing half your pay for a period of time, reduction in rank, and incarceration," but it's actually a bit more nuanced than that.
As an aside, have you shot or owned a M14 clone? It's okay to say no. We're in a M14 thread on /k/, so you'd be in good company.
