Why is M14/M1A making a come back?


PDA






LexusNexus
July 1, 2006, 11:29 AM
M14 is old technology based on WWII Garand, doing the samething that FAL and G3 could do just as well, maybe even better. It's heavy, no pistol grip, no rails (unless for ugly modern aftermarket) and does not have the tactical appearance. SO why all the interest, SA is asking for 1k+ for each and people are buying like hotcakes. You even see SOCOM in Iraq using it. Is it because all the wannabe keyboard commandos buying whatever SOCOM uses?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why is M14/M1A making a come back?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M92FS
July 1, 2006, 11:37 AM
M-14 is chambered for .308/7.62 x 51mm cartridge. it's got better stopping power compare to .223/5.56 x 45mm cartridge for AR-15 rifles. :)

rangerruck
July 1, 2006, 12:01 PM
no, it's because they are just worth more. Plus guys in the field, whether here in the cities by cops, or in the sandbox, want two things, hit a guy from 800 yds away, or if in close quarters, smash a guy through a wall. little chance of either with a 5.56. not impossible for the 800yds hit, but you will not shoot through a reinforced door with it.

Fosbery
July 1, 2006, 12:22 PM
7.62mm is making a come back in the US military (although one should be careful not to over-state this, it's not being issued en mass, the vast vast majority of troops still use M16 series rifles) because of concerns over the stopping power of 5.56mm. The M14 is the rifle being used simply because it's there. The FAL and the Stgw.57/AMT are far superior battle rifles but the US army already has tons of M14s, armourer's who are familiar with it and instructors who can teach soldiers how to use it.

If I were in charge of the US military, I'd just switch to using the more powerful British 5.56mm ammunition. No problems with stopping power there :evil:

Geno
July 1, 2006, 12:34 PM
It's about ballistic coefficients, and above all, penetration. Many 5.56 rounds tend to tumble on impact and the 7.62 penetrates straighter, and at longer distances. Here is a good read:

http://www.olyarms.com/?rootView=page&page=223articles

I own and like both, but for different applications: 5.56 for varmint and plinking inexpensively, and 7.62 in my SA M1A "Loaded" for hunting deer and long distance shooting now that I again am able to fire rifles.

I also find the SA M1A to be superior in accuracy. They are worth every penny.

Edited to add that several companies do make after-market stocks, with pistol grip, collapsing stock, and rails. That fact seems to place the M1A at the same level as an AR style rifle.

Doc2005

Gordon
July 1, 2006, 12:36 PM
in 1968 I took an m-14 up Hamburger Hill rather than an m-16. I gave m-16s a try in 1970 and later though. I used an HK-91 in 1979 and switched to an m-14 a few years later for practical rifle competition- they just seemed to work better for that game in the 80's. I started using FALs in the 90s, they can be made real nice.I have some AKs set up pretty nice for HD and keep those reliable things ready to go. I used AR-15s for almost 200 hours of training in the 2000's so far , but I am going back to a short trick m-14, I think they are more egonomic and reliable. The m-14's are still Kali legal, to show how moronic the laws are!:rolleyes:

Nightcrawler
July 1, 2006, 12:46 PM
Rails?

No current rifle design was designed with rails. Lest we all forget, those uber-tacitcal M4 carbines are little more than 1965 M16A1s with shorter barrels and rail handguards bolted on.

Rail handguards can be made for any design out there. I've seen them for the M1 Garand, for crying out loud.

The M14 is making a comeback in the military for the DMR program because they still have M14s in the inventory. Personally, I'd like to see a tricked-out, free-floated FAL pressed into the role, but the Pentagon stopped returning my phone calls.

They may be experiencing a jump in civilian popularity becasue Springfield came out with the SOCOM. People these days like shory, handy carbines. We're all convinced we're going to have to do building sweeps (myself included; my FAL recently came back with a 16" barrel). Rifles are just handier that way.

As for the price...

Why is it people complain about the price of every rifle out there except the AR-15? Why is $1,000+ for an M1A, made by one company, too much? How about $800 for an AR-15 that the company whose rollstamp is on it didn't actually produce? Most AR-15 makers farm out their production to subcontractors. Given that, and the volumes of production, a stock AR-15 should cost like $500, same as a high-end AK. The cheapest quality AR you'll see is probably $699 for a DPMS, though. Bushmaster costs more. Colt, Rock River, Wilson, Knights Armament...cha-ching!

Grunt
July 1, 2006, 01:36 PM
Hmm, reliable under all sorts of conditions, accurate, rugged as an AK and fires a round that can outrange a 5.56 and still do damage at those ranges. Can an M-16 compete at long range accuracy? Sure, but what kind of stopping power does it have at those longer ranges? Doesn't take much to poke a hole in paper and cheese cloth but when you are talking muscle, bones and tissue, it's a different story. So what if it's an older design. It works. As far as rails and all this other "tactical" doo-dads, a lot of riflemen see this stuff as gadgets that attempt to compensate for the shooters lack of skill.

mainmech48
July 1, 2006, 01:51 PM
Chambering a more powerful cartridge with better-than-twice the effective range, more effective penetration at all ranges, and a high standard of accuracy in a package with better functional reliability under harsh conditions than the current issue weapon just might explain why it's been kept on-hand for issue to designated marksmen for all these years.

Civilian target shooters in Service Rifle matches were once at an marked disadvantage when competing against the tuned and accurized M14s available to active and reserve military personnel with even the best modified Garands. When Springfield produced an "M14" which eliminated the select-fire feature that had made them effectively impossible for civilians to obtain, all that changed.

They continue to sell a bunch of them in various levels of trim and configuration, even at a grand or more a pop, because they are the ultimate refinement of the Garand design - not in spite of it. The "lack" of provision for hanging whatever bells and whistles might currently be the "Flavor of the Month" on something affects it's basic practicality and effectiveness not a whit.

citizen
July 1, 2006, 02:22 PM
+1,000....what nightcrawler said.

Telperion
July 1, 2006, 03:21 PM
The M14 is capable of match-grade accuracy with its stock iron sights, something I don't hear about with the FAL or G3. By the way, there are pistol grip stocks (http://www.mcmfamily.com/mcmillan/tactical/detail_tactical_mfs14.asp) available, and there are certainly ways to make a M14 look tacticool (http://www.jallenenterprises.com/index.html).

The M14 clones have also been very popular in California, where it is basically the only choice if you want a magazine-fed semi-auto that has full-capacity mags. It sure seems a lot of people in California were wise enough to stock up on 20 round mags before the ban.

Nightcrawler is spot-on with comments about price. The M16 is our military's current rifle, in addition to being popular with law enforcement agencies everywhere in the country. With the present military mobilization, there is an enormous amount of labor and capital deployed for its production, which is why they are now so cheap. The M14 hasn't been in production for over 40 years; when the military wants one, it grabs it from out of storage. The only manufacturers on the civilian side are Springfield, and some (much) smaller players like LRB and Fulton. Anyone looking at the situation would say of course it is going to be more expensive than an AR-15.

Dmack_901
July 1, 2006, 03:26 PM
I have to believe the various "assault weapons" bans contributed to it. And the non-tacticool look probably helps too. It's kinda embarrassing to bring a decked out m4 to the range.

As for the military aspect, I don't think it ever left.

Fosbery
July 1, 2006, 03:31 PM
No current rifle design was designed with rails.

G36C? That was designed so that rails could be attached to it whenever needed if IIRC.

Vern Humphrey
July 1, 2006, 03:38 PM
I carried an M14 as a company commander in Viet Nam (the accurized, scoped pre-M21 version.) I also occasionally operated with Australian advisers who had the FAL.

I'll take the M14.

George Hill
July 1, 2006, 03:40 PM
Same reasons classic Hot Rods are making a come back. They are powerful and cool and such things need no explanation.
M14's or 'Cudas... girls in tight sweaters.... they really don't ever go out of style.

Seven High
July 1, 2006, 03:52 PM
Fosbery: Please tell me about the more powerful British ammunition. I assumed that the British were using the same ammunition tht U.S. forces are.

carebear
July 1, 2006, 04:50 PM
I have one because, whenever reality intrudes on my tacticool fantasies, I remember I might want to use the rifle for more than just the range or practicing clearing my house for the thousandth time.

I live in Alaska, most of the game up here requires a medium rifle caliber at minimum to humanely and reliably take. .308 is a real rifle caliber, I can shoot actual hunting rounds through it and take bear, moose or caribou AND keep it handy for the zombie hordes or for when the Russkies come over the Strait.

Can't do that with a .22, not up here.

Vern Humphrey
July 1, 2006, 04:54 PM
Here in Arkansas, not too long ago, people near Quitman were reporting seeing a pride of African lions roaming the woods. By some miracle, the Sheriff's Department didn't ignore them, but went out and looked. There were five of them -- apparently abandoned by someone who wanted a local "big cat refuge" to take them, but the refuge was full.

The deputies used M1As to deal with the problem.

Fosbery
July 1, 2006, 04:58 PM
Seven High, it's 5.56mm NATO, but it's loaded to a higher power and uses 'better' bullets. That, and even if we used US ammunition we'd get up to higher velocities than a lot of US troops because the L85, which is the same length as an M4, has the same barrel length as an M16.

Think of it to US 5.56mm, as US 5.56mm is to .223 rem.

Grunt
July 1, 2006, 05:02 PM
Too bad the L85 doesn't work half the time. :neener: Seriously though, did they ever get the old SA-80 to ever work right or is it still a junker?

4v50 Gary
July 1, 2006, 05:15 PM
I'd rather see an AR-10 type rifle in the hands of our troops. First, the DM won't stand out as much as if he carried the M-14 in whatever form. Second, the AR action is inherently more accurate with its gas impingment action and fewer parts than the M-14. Third, it's easier to keep an AR type action going and going accurately than the M-14. Still, follow the money. It's what we got so it's what we'll use.

Quintin Likely
July 1, 2006, 05:35 PM
'Cause they're cool.

loadedround
July 1, 2006, 05:56 PM
...and they are just plain better!

Fosbery
July 1, 2006, 06:11 PM
"Too bad the L85 doesn't work half the time. Seriously though, did they ever get the old SA-80 to ever work right or is it still a junker?"

Don't believe the rubbish you hear. I never once had a problem with it. I mean, of course I had failures but no more than I have had using FALs, AKs, AR15s and H&K rifles. It shoots further, more accurately and with more power than an M16, is much shorter but is so heavy that you can fire it on full auto, drain the magazine and barely feel the recoil. It's a pain to lug around at first, but that just gets you more fit more quickly. That, and it's without a doubt the most comfortable and natural pointing rifle I've ever used, and I've used a lot. Having said all that, the original L85 was not without its faults, but it was a lot better than the original M16, that's for sure. The main issues like the fiddly mag release and the unpredictable direction of case ejection and the relatively weak pistol grip have been fixed with the A2 which is a superb weapon by any account.

The media have got it in for the British equipment. They can't complain about the troops because the public don't want to hear it, so they target the equipment instead.

Monkeyleg
July 1, 2006, 06:18 PM
I would still like to know why the SA M1A base model with a walnut stock is so expensive.

A Remington 7400 with a walnut stock is about $500. A standard M1A around here goes for over $1300. Even the cheapest online gun stores charge $1200.

Both have wood stocks, although the 7400 has a fancier stock.

Both have great barrels, although the 7400 is polished and blued (more expensive to produce).

Both have milled receivers.

The M1A has sights, and great sights. But are the sights alone worth the additional $800?

Don't get me wrong, the M1A is a great rifle, and I want one something fierce. I just don't understand the price.

Vern Humphrey
July 1, 2006, 06:24 PM
1. The M1A and M14 were not designed for low-cost production.

2. The M1A is not made or sold in great volumes.

3. People will pay just about what they ask for as many as they can make.

Danus ex
July 1, 2006, 08:28 PM
Monkeyleg--

It would indeed be interesting to see someone battle-rifle-ize a Saiga 100, Remington 7400, a Browning BAR, and a Winchester SXR and see if/how they compete with an M1A, G3/PTR, and FAL.

illini52
July 1, 2006, 08:36 PM
...and they look badass!

Byron Quick
July 1, 2006, 08:44 PM
At the gunstores I support, the M1A never went away to come back later. I've seen it all over ever since SA started producing them. Never noticed a time they weren't available.

Sold my H&K 91. Kept my M1A.

smince
July 1, 2006, 09:18 PM
Monkeyleg:

I can't believe anyone on this forum would (or could) compare the M1A to a 7400:confused: :eek: :rolleyes:

DMK
July 1, 2006, 09:42 PM
M14 is old technology based on WWII Garand, doing the samething that FAL and G3 could do just as well, maybe even better. It's heavy, no pistol grip, no rails (unless for ugly modern aftermarket) and does not have the tactical appearance.I don't have an M1A/M14, but I have a Garand which is much like the M1A/M14 "under the hood". I also have two FALs.

You can't compare the FAL to the Garand as fars as accuracy. In similar condition, the Garand is a more accurate rifle and has much better sights. The M14s have proven to be even even more accurate than the Garand in competition. The FAL might have the edge of reliability in dirty conditions though, but the Garand and M14 have both been through a LOT of stuff with acceptable reliability.

One can mount a scope fairly easily on an M1A/M14 and Springfield makes a number of different rail options for the M1A. The simple top rail on the Scout models isn't asthetically unattractive at all.

The FAL has no rails. There are aftermarket scope mounts, but some are good, while others are garbage. DSA makes the one forearm rail system and it's very expensive.

The FAL was put into service around the same time as the M14. Both are old technology. Actually, most guns recycle old technology with a few improvments here and there. The FAL uses a tilting bolt mechanism similar to the SVT-40. Even the AR can trace some of it's roots back to the Johnson rifle of WWII. If something works, why try and reinvent it?

The FAL is very heavy. I'm not sure how the M14 compares, but my FALs are heavier than my Garand.

Quality commercial built FALs are only slightly cheaper than M1As. You can get them built for cheaper, but you can do the same with M14s too.

Monkeyleg
July 2, 2006, 12:31 AM
smince: "I can't believe anyone on this forum would (or could) compare the M1A to a 7400"

I'm only comparing the two in terms of cost of production. Nothing else.

And, before M1A owners get bent out of shape, remember that I said I really, really want one.

I'm just trying to figure out the cost differential between the 7400 (a semi-auto model I just picked at random) and the M1A.

If it's a question of supply versus demand, then hats off to SA for producing a real winner.

But what I really want to know is if there are other manufacturing costs involved with the M1A that establish its price.

dmckean44
July 2, 2006, 01:01 AM
Monkeyleg,

Just looking at the schematics the 7400 has about one third less parts than the M1A. I'm sure the rest of the cost is just accurizing and higher quality parts. You can't compare the sporting semi-autos to the battle rifles, they just don't have the same feel.

Your barrel comparison is a bit off, and expensive finish on a thin cheap barrel and whips bullets around costs about the same as the heavyier barrle in the parkerized finish.

DPB
July 2, 2006, 03:21 AM
I'm no expert, but I have been in Baghdad since February. Along with most of the 4th Infantry Division and 101st ABN. I have seen fewer than 10 M 14s. Only one or two had optics.

I think the "reissue" of the M14s has happened mostly in the popular firearm media.

There are some practical considerations driving this as well. Off the rack 14s were like 2-4 MOA guns when they were new. They were last new in the early 1960s. Time and use (after 100 rounds or so) and arsenal rebuilcing doesn't generally improve a rifles accuracy (consistency.) Additionally, the support and maintenance systems for these rifles was discarded, again, in the 1960s. You need spare parts for combat weapons, and these are largely not in the system. These are problems that you (and I) don't generally have to deal with when dealing with our M1As.

Also, the Army went to a bolt action sniper system (the M24), because it is so difficult to keep M14 based precision systems (the M21) match grade accurate.

Penetration is a questionable argument. I've seen the much maligned M855 (green tip) go through 5/8ths of an inch of steel at 500M, out of a 14.5 inch barrelled M-4. The same piece of steel was un marked by M118 Special Ball match ammo out of an M-24 (24 in. bbl. 7.62.).

The vast majority of the patrolling in Iraq is done from vehicles. Working in and out of a HMMWV, Stryker, Bradley, whatever, is infinitely easier with an M-4, or even M-16, than with an M-14. Especially when wearing armor.

Lethality at exended ranges is also a generally meaningless argument, since 1) Most engagements are taking place inside 100m, and 2) Every vehicle has one or more M-240s, MK-19s, or M-2s (50 cal.). Very few long range targets are being engaged with individual weapons, snipers being the exception.

Finally, it should be noted that the Marines, who, on average and across their service, tend to shoot better than the Army (man, it hurt to say that), are not issueing M-14s, they are issuing flat top M-16 variants.

I think M1As are popular because they are cool guns that people like to shoot, and they are getting a lot of good press. The fact that the press about their battlefield use is largely erroneous doesn't stop it from being widely read.

Medusa
July 2, 2006, 03:53 AM
Because they offer aimed fire at 800+ yards and with plenty of oompf at this range? We, for example, have M14s as sniper rifles (though I'd say they're more like DMRs) here. But of course, it depends on the intended role, for close combat the M4 would be much more useful, for long range&accurate fire the 7.62 would have it's niché. But so would artillery. :evil:

G3? If you ever read my blog I do describe my experiences with AK-4 (which is a clone of G3) and how the bastard jammed often due lack of cleaning (and I shot only 600-800 rounds through it) and probably low-quality ammo. Otherwise in range the G3 holds pretty tight groups with iron sights.

I got the AK since we were supposed to have only 7.62 blanks, later turned out that 3 Galils had showed up with limited amount of ammo. Otherwise I'd prefer my G36, as it's a lot lighter and handier and I'm more accustomed to it.

Fosbery
July 2, 2006, 05:36 AM
I disliked the full-size H&K rifles, like the G3. It's got no balance to it, it feels awkward like it's a struggle to keep the muzzle level.

The FAL was fine, from an ergonomics point of view, as was the M14 but I found that my FAL (an L1A1) was more accurate, and easier to shoot from standing too. Plus I found it simpler to strip, quicker to clean etc.

On the point of M14/M1A price, it's just the same as everything else in the world: supply and demand. If the supply is low, the price is high (all things being equal). If the demand is high, the price will be high (all things being equal). Clearly, not many M1A/M14s are made, but a lot of people want them, so the price goes right up.

gripper
July 2, 2006, 06:07 AM
The FAL is a softer shooter.Thats in part due to the op-rod of the M14 vs. the gas system of the FAL.A reason the direct gas impingement sytems tend to be better bench& offhand shooters at the range.Perceived recoil is different.I happen to like both.I'd give a nod to the M14 for the reciprocating bolt handle,but I also like the FAL with the Izzy HB bolt group (extra operating mass).

smince
July 2, 2006, 07:45 AM
I'm just trying to figure out the cost differential between the 7400 (a semi-auto model I just picked at random) and the M1A.


What dmckean44 said.

Plus, the 7400 receiver may (or may not) be machined, but it is nowhere near as complex and heavy-duty as the M1A receiver. Sporting rifles in general are not designed to be dragged through the muck and desert with little or no cleaning and be expected to not only fire, but fire reliably.

Lebben-B
July 2, 2006, 07:48 AM
DPB, excellent post, well said!

Grumulkin
July 2, 2006, 08:19 AM
I bought an SA National Match M1A back in the 80's. I figure it's now worth at least twice what I paid for it; not a bad investment.

saltydog
July 2, 2006, 09:12 AM
I would still like to know why the SA M1A base model with a walnut stock is so expensive.


I'm going to guess it would be the same reason that Colt wants around $1200.00 dollars dealer price for its model 6920 varmint rifle.:D

I own 2 AR's and the only thing I like about them is their light weight,

and

I live in an area you can't see more than a 100 yards and I consider that perfect for me.

Geno
July 2, 2006, 09:14 AM
Fulton Armory has some pretty sweet items for sale. Check them out some day when you have a few minutes of free time:

http://www.fulton-armory.com/MAParts.htm

The Sage EBR/Mark 14 Tactical Stock/Accurizing System, for $719.95 is pretty cool-looking, but I'm happy with my M1A's factory stock.

Sage CAR Tactical Stock/Accurizing System makes the M1A look like an AR15, collapsing stock and all, for a mere $699.95!

For a mere $249.95, you can buy a Scope Mount, Smith, Steel, Extended Rail, Marked US Property for the receiver. It looks nice. Of course, there is a new M1A manufacturer that has designed a "new" version of said same, and it has the scope base built right into the receiver top. The Scope Mount, Smith, Steel, Extended Rail, Marked US Property doesn't look too bad either.

Well, if you're an M1A fan, this is your site! To view the AR items, you will need to go back to their home page. The above page is specifically the M14, M1A page. Happy viewing.

Edited to add:

http://www.fulton-armory.com/M1_Carbine.jpg

Psych!

Doc2005

Kaylee
July 2, 2006, 10:04 AM
DPB -- thank you for the first-hand report, and more importantly thank you for your service over there.

Trebor
July 2, 2006, 10:59 AM
...the US army already has tons of M14s, armourer's who are familiar with it and instructors who can teach soldiers how to use it.

Actually, none of those three statements is true.

The supplies of M-14's in the U.S. inventory are actually quite low. We destroyed some and gave hundreds of thousands away as military assistance to Latvia, Estonia, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries in the mid to late '90s. There are relatively few rifles left in the system and absolutely no spart parts.

There are NO school-trained armourers for the M-14 in the military. The knowledge base just isn't there.

The instructors aren't familiar with the M-14 either. The Army actually worked with the Civilian Marksmanship Program to get volunteer civilian instructors from the Texas State Rifle Association to teach military instructors the fundamentals of long range rifle shooting and how to use and instrut others on the M-14 rifle. That knowledge just isn't in the system anymore.

The U.S. military is only using the M-14 in limited numbers in limited applciations. Even then, the military is struggling with the problems caused by lack of rifles, lack of parts, and lack of training.

The new Semi-Auto Sniper System is AR based for a variety of reasons, not the least of them is that the training carries over from the M-16 series.

The use of the M-14 is currently nothing more then a stop-gap. Whatever the virtues (or vices) of the rifle itself, there are so many problems keeping it in service that the military immensely desires a replacement.

DMK
July 2, 2006, 11:36 AM
DPB, you make a lot of good points, many directly opposite of some assumptions made here at home. It's hard to argue with an observant guy in the thick of it.

Stay safe!
I found that my FAL (an L1A1) was more accurate, and easier to shoot from standing too. Plus I found it simpler to strip, quicker to clean etc.
Man, I agree whole heartedly about the FAL being easier to clean. The simplicity is very admirable. It's almost as easy to clean as a bolt action.

Dave Markowitz
July 2, 2006, 11:50 AM
The FAL is a softer shooter.Thats in part due to the op-rod of the M14 vs. the gas system of the FAL.A reason the direct gas impingement sytems tend to be better bench& offhand shooters at the range.Perceived recoil is different.I happen to like both.I'd give a nod to the M14 for the reciprocating bolt handle,but I also like the FAL with the Izzy HB bolt group (extra operating mass).

The FAL does not have a direct impingement gas system. It has a piston, just like the M-14 does. The FAL may have less reciprocating mass (not sure) than the M-14, however.

ryoushi
July 2, 2006, 11:57 AM
Fashion plan and simple. The trend started soon after Saving Private Ryan hit the theaters in 1998. M1s and retro 1911's were suddenly the shiznet.

Those hopped up M14 Crazy Horse Rifles (http://www.smithenterprise.com/products02.html) are cool but so is an SPR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Mark_12_Mod_X_Special_Purpose_Rifle)

Phantom Warrior
July 2, 2006, 12:01 PM
There are NO school-trained armourers for the M-14 in the military.


He is correct, w/ the possible exception of something like the Army Marksmanship Unit. I'm SAM 31 qualified. That is the U.S. Army unit armorer's course. (I'm not actually a unit armorer, but that's a long story.) SAM 31 does not cover ANYTHING regarding the M-14. It covers the M9, M16, M203, M249, M240, M2, and Mk 19. Nothing else.

Fosbery
July 2, 2006, 12:39 PM
Ah, I stand corrected. I assumed the armourer's for the sniper units, familiar with the M21, would be able to train ordinary armourers for the M14 DMRs etc.

Heh, I would have given anything to be an armourer back in the British army. They dealt with all the gear from sniper rifles to machineguns to pistols, but also with any 'procured' weapons. They have everything 'in stock' from AK47s to .44 magnum hunting revolvers, Bofors anti-tank rifles, lugers, 1911s, even an M14. I have no idea where they get half the stuff from. I mean, some of it, like the AKs, are kept for foreign weapons familiarisation or incase some special forces unit needs to go under cover using foreign weaponry...but hunting revolvers? I think the armourers just use their status to build up their own little collections to play with :evil:

Sven
July 2, 2006, 12:52 PM
Powerful. Accurate. Availabile.

http://www.imageseek.com/sven/gallery/albums/m1a/100_yards.jpg

That would leave more than a mark. :what:

killzone
July 2, 2006, 01:45 PM
:) Here is a saying for you dude.

Where the Rest Sucks - THE M14 ROCKS!

It really is true... Rest of you.... Agree????

MisterPX
July 2, 2006, 04:45 PM
Comeback?????? When did it ever leave?

Peter M. Eick
July 2, 2006, 07:32 PM
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/eickpm/sm_targets2.jpg
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/eickpm/nm_target.jpg

I agree with Sven. In my case though, 50 shots per target, 100 yards, off the bench.

Lonestar.45
July 2, 2006, 08:20 PM
Look at the energy stats for the 7.62 and the 5.56 at 200, 300, 400+ yds. If you're in wide open areas (and not house clearing or shooting 100yds), and your life depended on your weapon, which would you rather have? It's all about caliber.

geekWithA.45
July 2, 2006, 09:12 PM
The posts speaking of the loss of institutional knowledge and support mechanisms for the M-14 suggests to me that perhaps it's not the best MBR for the military.

OTOH, I think the many advantages outlined in this thread explain its enduring popularity with the general militia. :cool:

Quintin Likely
July 2, 2006, 09:54 PM
As a civilian in a non-SHTF scenario, I would think shooting someone preemptively at 200, 300, 400 yards with an AR15 or an M1A is called "murder."

In a military situation, sure, I can see that; but a previous poster in the sandbox says most engagements are within 100M anyways. Which is plenty close enough to get your day ruined by any assortment of small arms, be it carried by the soldier or mounted on a vehicle.

Lebben-B
July 3, 2006, 08:17 AM
I assumed the armourer's for the sniper units, familiar with the M21, would be able to train ordinary armourers for the M14 DMRs etc.

Wrong again. The M21 hasn't been a "mainstream" system for over 15 years. It was replaced by the M24 SWS, a bolt action rifle based on the Rem 700. And unit level armorers aren't trained on it. When an M24 acts up (rare, but happens) it's sent back to Remington for repair or replacement. The only units that still have M21s, spare parts, and armorers that can work on them - in the Army, at least - are the Special Forces Groups.

kfranz
July 3, 2006, 09:06 AM
I bought an SA National Match M1A back in the 80's. I figure it's now worth at least twice what I paid for it; not a bad investment.

20 years to double your money is a really poor investment. Having something you've enjoyed for 20 years is a wise expenditure, regardless of its end value.

Steven Hacker
July 3, 2006, 10:06 AM
I got my M1A because I always liked the M1 Garands-I own two of those. Having shot and carried the M16 I know all the typical stated advantages of it, "It's lighter! You can carry more ammo! It's easy to clean! etc, etc, etc". While the "souped up .22" is fine for target shooting it just won't reliable knock down anyone at 250+yards-and keep them down. My brother in law kept saying I should buy his Colt AR-15 and I'd tell him, "You couldn't GIVE me that gun! Well, you COULD GIVE it to me. Then I'd sell it and buy something good!":evil: I bought my M1A at Tulsa about 7 years ago. A guy was looking at it (it was in a black fiberglass stock) and there was a young guy standing by him with the original box and a Birch stock. I asked the kid if it was his and how much he wanted for it. "Yes, it is mine and I want $850 plus an additional $50 for the Birch stock." The guy looking at it asks me if I want to see it and I said sure. That kid hadn't put more than 50-60 rounds through it, the rifle was beautiful. I kept it in my hands, reached in my pocket and pulled out $700 and said I'd pay him $700 cash right then and there but I wanted the Birch stock too! He thought about it (and the other guy's standing there with his mouth hanging open. :eek: ) for a few seconds and says "OK!" :D The other guy says, "I said you could look at it, not buy it!" :banghead: And I replied, "You handed it to me. You snooze, you loose!" :neener: I love that rifle-tough choice when I go to the range to shoot. M1 or M1A???:rolleyes:

Scottso
July 3, 2006, 12:16 PM
They are greta reliable hard hitting weapons, and can be modified in many ways, have 4 FAL's and to say a FAL or G3 can do a better job is a bit much.
They are tried and true Battle rifles, and If push came to shove I would take my M1A over my FAL's including my Belgian.

Fosbery
July 3, 2006, 12:58 PM
Sorry, but that is the ugliest non-joke gun I have ever seen :p

AndyC
July 3, 2006, 01:00 PM
Argh! My eyes! :what: :D

Grunt
July 3, 2006, 01:25 PM
Form follows function.

Limeyfellow
July 3, 2006, 04:02 PM
Too bad the L85 doesn't work half the time. Seriously though, did they ever get the old SA-80 to ever work right or is it still a junker?

The latest reports from the field seem to indicate that the L85a2 is more reliable than even the M4s and M16s, its always been more accurate and turned into a nice little rifle. Just took 20 years really to sort out, but so did just about every other weapon system currently being fielded. For instance the Garand took nearly 20 years too to sort out all the bugs.

The L86a2 with the longer heavy barrel and bipod has pretty much taken on the role of a dmr nowadays. Its easily capable of engaging enemies at 800 yards like the M14 dmrs with match ammo and fires the same rounds and magazines as the L85a2s while the Minimi has become the main supressive fire weapon.

Fosbery
July 3, 2006, 05:45 PM
^ Yay! A person with sense at last! :D

Pretty impressive that a 5.56mm rifle can match a 7.62mm rifle of the same length, no?

phonesysphonesys
July 3, 2006, 06:24 PM
The M14 make for a fine club it things get too close. Butt strokes are brutal.

Semper Fi

Vern Humphrey
July 3, 2006, 07:24 PM
The latest reports from the field seem to indicate that the L85a2 is more reliable than even the M4s and M16s, its always been more accurate and turned into a nice little rifle.

How accurate is it, and how reliable? Give us some numbers.

Grunt
July 3, 2006, 07:39 PM
Hitting a target at long range is one thing. Doing damage is another. No thanks, I'll stick with the 7.62 NATO for things past 300 yards.

Deer Hunter
July 3, 2006, 07:48 PM
I've heard that about the L85a2 as well. I consider the first versions very problematic, but the newer versions, from the reports I've heard, are turning out to be nice weapons. Kind of like the first AR15s to be used in Vietnam. I think we all know that they weren't the most reliable out there at that time. With a longer barrel to get more velocity for fragmentation and accuracy, I assume that this would be a pretty good gun to use in combat.

All hearsay and opinions, but the gun has gotten better.

I wish the US army would go back to the 7.62 NATO. It doesn't kick. You heard me, the .308 doesn't kick. The only version of a .308 I've ever fired were lightweight Mountain guns used for white-tail hunting. Even with full-power loads and a light gun, the round has never kicked as much as others. Sure, it may kick more than a 5.56, but then again, what doesn't? Train our soldiers to work with the 7.62 and save the 5.56 for close-up building clearing. I have always thought the 5.56 is a really great round when used at close ranges. Within 100 yards, the 5.56 will easily dispatch the target because the bullet still has enough velocity to properly fragment.

I have a question, though. It may be off topic, but why doesn't the military consider the .243? It's already prooven itself to be a flat-shooting, high velocity round without much recoil but a pretty good amount of power. I've been contemplating the US military using this round for a while, and I can't really find anything wrong with it.

Vern Humphrey
July 3, 2006, 08:01 PM
Hitting a target at long range is one thing. Doing damage is another. No thanks, I'll stick with the 7.62 NATO for things past 300 yards.

It has been my experience that people in combat will actually try to hide from you -- using rocks, trees, logs, berms, walls and so on. Which is why I like a cartridge that can shoot through things like that.:p

226
July 3, 2006, 08:23 PM
MK14 Mod O (Enhanced Battle Rifle) (http://www.smithenterprise.com/products16.html)

Select-fire and... fully transferable! New old stock Smith Enterprise, Inc. receiver.

Exact duplicate of USN SEAL weapon, except this rifle features the superior SEI 18" chrome lined, M118LR chamber, P/N 2027 barrel. Bolt engraved MK14 Mod O with anchor.

Unfired except for factory certification testing. This will be the only fully transferable select-fire Smith Enterprise, Inc. MK14 Mod O ever available on the NFA market.

Available 15 June 2006.

$30,000

carebear
July 3, 2006, 08:28 PM
Kidney for sale, low mileage, one owner. :D

226
July 5, 2006, 10:07 AM
Btw, the M-14 never left the U.S. Navy's inventory. No shortage of Gunner's Mates trained in their upkeep I'd happen to say. Yeah, they also work fine as anti-shark weapons during swim call.

30 June 2006 SEI completes another production run of M14SE Crazy Horse Semiautomatic Sniper Systems (SASS) for the US Army. (http://www.smithenterprise.com/support04.html)

http://www.smithenterprise.com/images/news001.02.jpg

http://m14firinglineforum.com/upload/images/smilies/NAVY1.gif

...

71Commander
July 5, 2006, 10:35 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=207607

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/tucker13/m-14.jpg

Red State
July 5, 2006, 03:00 PM
"I have a question, though. It may be off topic, but why doesn't the military consider the .243? It's already prooven itself to be a flat-shooting, high velocity round without much recoil but a pretty good amount of power. I've been contemplating the US military using this round for a while, and I can't really find anything wrong with it."

I have actually been wondering the same thing. Proven cartridge, seems like a good compromise..........

Vern Humphrey
July 5, 2006, 03:17 PM
I have a question, though. It may be off topic, but why doesn't the military consider the .243?

The .243 is simply the .308 (or 7.62X51 NATO) necked down. It has the same footprint -- same headsize, same length receiver required, and so on. Why go to the .243 when you already have the battle-proven 7.62X51 NATO?

amk
July 5, 2006, 07:45 PM
The rumour is that the British 5.56 was lower power than US 5.56 because the bullpup would destruct shooting the US spec stuff. Well, low and behold I bought some Radway Green SS109 and sure enough it had much lower muzzle velocity than US. Did they change this? If they did, I'd buy more of it, clean ammo on strippers and bandoleers.

Werewolf
July 5, 2006, 09:27 PM
I just don't understand the price.Too many people simply don't understand that price doesn't have a darn thing to do with cost other than it ought to be higher.

I'd bet a sizable chunk of my annual salary that SA's prices on the various models of M1A they sell are exactly what the market and their capacity to build them will bear and the market seems willing to bear those $1200 to $2000+ price tags that SA attaches.Enough people are obviously willing to pay what SA wants that SA feels no pressure at all to lower their price.Don't get me wrong, the M1A is a great rifle, and I want one something fierce. Me too my friend - me too...

Devonai
July 5, 2006, 09:56 PM
I only bought a M1 Garand (SA 1942, $650) because I couldn't afford a M1A. Now I'll never look back.

A M1 in good condition should be a serious contender for the rifleman who may be considering a M1A but is turned off by the price. It seems to me that neither rifle is a good choice for sustained covering fire, so if that's in your mission profile you would be better served with an AR-15 or another magazine-fed 5.56mm semi-auto.

Yes, I know you can get 30-round magazines for the M1A, but if you're planning on covering fire, 5.56mm will serve just as well and you can carry much more of it.

Slap a M1D-style flash hider on your Garand, and I believe you will be well-served for any tactical engagement that does not involve over-penetration issues or extensive fire-and-maneuver.

flip180
July 5, 2006, 10:31 PM
They are great rifles and what I feel are worth the price. A new M1A will cost in the neighborhood of 1200.00 and up depending on where you can find one and what you want. Take a look at the DSA FAL's. They aren't cheap either and they start out at close to the same amount. Plus they are built from parts kits. I sold off alot of guns to buy my M1A and have not regretted it since. I've always wanted one and instead of saving up for one, I would buy some B.S. gun to satisfy a gun purchase craving. I did that about four times. My safe filled up with a bunch of those B.S. guns that I bought instead of saving up for the M1A. I didn't even shoot those guns anymore. I sold all of them off and guess what, I now have my M1A and I love it.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/flip180/m1A002.jpg

Flip

Dienekes
July 6, 2006, 01:35 AM
The M14 (yeah, I know, "M1A") is a classic because, like the DC-3, it is more than the sum of its parts. Had it been around in 1944, Patton would have called the M14 "the greatest battle implement". It has range, power, and accuracy in a proven package, and does all things passably well; some superbly well.

I was a young grunt when the M16 was new and viewed it with a jaundiced eye. Used them off and on thereafter and had a CAR-15 before M4s became cool. am currently acquiring another, but it is a niche weapon as far as I am concerned.

When in doubt I would opt for the M1A (heck, even an M1!) because I think it would take better care of me.

citizen
July 6, 2006, 05:15 AM
Knock it off, guys........it's startin' to get to me. The ONLY resistance I have left is the cost of mags.........:(

06
July 6, 2006, 07:44 PM
My nephew is in the sandbox and using a 14. Mine is a Norinco but is as accurate as the ones I carried in the Corps. They are fine rifles. The 223 is a fine round but the 51 is better at penetrating cover if needed. 06(of course if it was chambered in 30-06 it would be better).

Vern Humphrey
July 6, 2006, 07:52 PM
I've carried both the M1 and M14 in combat -- and, crusty old bastard that I am, I like the .30-06 better -- especially AP for combat use.

ArmedBear
July 6, 2006, 08:11 PM
The age of the design doesn't mean it's got anything wrong with it.

Hell, the AR dates back nearly as far; the military just took a while to adopt it because it didn't seem much like a rifle. The AK dates to 1947, and it was the next step from the SKS, which is even older.

The 1911 is a much older design than any of the above, and it's still used, too. The 870 dates to 1950; the 500 dates to 1961. They also are used by the military, in one form or another.

Firearms are a mature product. They haven't changed so much in the last 50 years. The M1A is an updated version of a 1950s rifle design. But so is the AR. The first one was built in 1955 and tested by the military in 1956.

http://www.armalite.com/library/history/old_ar10.jpg

azredhawk44
July 6, 2006, 08:47 PM
I bought mine last year as a "Congratulations on that new job" present to myself.

I haven't been able to feed it as much as I would like, maybe a total of 1000 rounds or so. About 5-6 trips out is all. Work is now too demanding.

But it is a sweet rifle. I have the M1A Scout 18" model. I am considering a Fulton Armory National Match rifle too, as well as a CMP M1 Garand.

I love the action, I love the sights, and I love the fact that I don't have half a dozen M1913 Picatinny rails all over the damn thing. I love that I can pop a 5-round magazine into it and hunt with the same gun I go target shooting or plinking.

I am disappointed in only one set-back the gun has... that's the weight of bullet it can fire.

I've never tried to load anything outside of the 147gr - 175gr acceptable weights of bullets, but there are several I'd like to be able to use.

I think Sierra's 110gr Varminter hollowpoint would be fun to shoot from the .308 M1A/M14, but I am not sure if the action would have sufficient pressure to fully cycle. It would absolutely ruin a coyote's day, and would make a FANTASTIC short range personal defense round for a semiauto rifle that could otherwise cycle the cartridge.

And I think that the host of 180gr bullets out there for larger game such as elk, black bear, and other large game that CAN be taken with the .308 cartridge would be nice to be able to shoot in the M1A/M14 platform. But, this generates too much pressure in the gas system and can bend the operating rod.

So, I buy 3 types of bullets: 147-150gr FMJ berdan-primed surplus cartridges for silly plinking (pop cans and junk shooting), 168gr HPBT match bullets for it for precision accuracy, and 165gr SoftPoint bullets for hunting and more "serious" plinking. I'm not under-"gunned" for elk, but I may be under-bulleted due to the restrictions on bullet weight.

But, even with that one limitation on its use in one specific instance (which it really wasn't designed for), I would never get rid of it. It's a fantastic rifle, with a fantastic means of operation. I want all of its variants for my collection.

30Cal
July 7, 2006, 11:52 AM
I've never tried to load anything outside of the 147gr - 175gr acceptable weights of bullets, but there are several I'd like to be able to use.


I shoot a 125gr TNT over IMR4895 for 200yds doing a lazy 2430fps. The M1A cycles it just fine. It cost me 17¢ a pop to shoot these. Prone w/ Iron sights.

http://webpages.charter.net/tyoberg/upload/125tnt%20prone100yds.jpg

226
July 7, 2006, 03:12 PM
I believe Smith Enterprise, Inc. (http://www.smithenterprise.com/) can ream your chamber to shoot the heavier bullets. Being they are busy with another customer, there may be a wait time.

http://m14firinglineforum.com/upload/images/smilies/NAVY1.gif

I've never tried to load anything outside of the 147gr - 175gr acceptable weights of bullets, but there are several I'd like to be able to use.

...

amk
July 7, 2006, 08:24 PM
If 180's are all you need, just get the adjustable gas plug from creedmore and go to town, its not like your going to be shooting thousands of them. Heck, I wouldn't be concerned about shooting 180s in an M1A without the adjustable gas plug, I just wouldn't shoot them by the hundreds.

MechAg94
July 7, 2006, 10:15 PM
My Dad trained with the M14 and was issued the M16 in Vietnam. He prefers the M14, but he said he did appreciate the low rifle and ammo weight when doing patrols in their camp area. He said he would rather go hungry rather than run out of ammo on a patrol. He still prefers the M14 for plinking and likes the sights. The peep sight with the ears on the front sight really help him center things up even though his vision isn't what it used to be. M14s are tough rifles.

If you need GI surplus mags, I believe Armalite is still selling their stock of them for $25 per.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why is M14/M1A making a come back?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!