Hi, I am thinking about purchasing an M1A or M14 in the coming months. I was wondering what make and model you recommend and why. I don't have any real purpose for it other than it is cool and a classic. Thanks.
Thinking about an M1A or M14
- Thread starter giggitygiggity
- Start date
- Status
tomrkba
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,370
Do some research into the various types of receivers. Some are more correct than others. A current generation Springfield Armory M1A does have some differences. There are definitely some makes to avoid, but my information is several years old. Some of the M1A/M14 guys here may shed some light on the current status of these rifles.
The M1A is made by Springfield. They have a number of variants, but the classic "Standard M1A" model should get you started nicely. They start at ~$1500.
The M14 is the full auto government version upon which the semi-auto M1A is based. If you have a Class 3 license you can buy one. They cost a LOT more, starting at about $15K. And they are very rare.
The M14 is the full auto government version upon which the semi-auto M1A is based. If you have a Class 3 license you can buy one. They cost a LOT more, starting at about $15K. And they are very rare.
I think the Springfield M1A National Match is the best bang for the buck right now. You get reasonable match accuracy out of the box with out paying a huge tariff to get a custom build done. It still has the feel of a normal M-14 without the thick stock of the SuperMatch. I don't shoot my National as much as my Super but every time I do, I am always pleased with it.
Reloadron
Contributing Member
Actually Poly Technologies (NORINCO of China) did market under the part number M14 in the US till the Clinton Administration banned all the Chinese imports. The box said M14/something.
What it really comes down to is the name or naming rights I guess.
As to the Poly Technics versions it really depends on who you talk to. I suggest the original poster give this a read.
I have an early 90s SA NM M1A rifle which I have enjoyed for 20 years plus. Works for me anyway. Since then a few others have jumped on the bandwagon making M14 semi-automatic clones. The early rifles used original GI parts but as parts dried up new manufacture parts were made.
Moxie, a good friend of mine has a M14. Last Knob Creek outing they were running around 30K for a good rifle. Try as I will I just can't seem to justify the cost to myself, even though after I am in a box in the ground my wife would get more than I would pay today for one.
There is a company on Long Island NY making the semi-auto M14 clones and I understand they make a hell of a rifle. What is their name again? Not quite inexpensive but a hell of a good rifle.
My experience is if you continue with doing the homework and put due diligence into looking around you can get what you want, in a good rifle in the $1,500 range as was mentioned. I would suggest a Springfield Armory standard as was suggested also.
Ron
$30K for an M14. Yikes!!
Re NORINCO, et al. They made a lot of stuff, some of it good. But, I don't think they felt particularly restrained or constrained about such things as trademarks, copyrights and intellectual property.
Re NORINCO, et al. They made a lot of stuff, some of it good. But, I don't think they felt particularly restrained or constrained about such things as trademarks, copyrights and intellectual property.
I have owned one each SOCOM 16, Standard, Loaded, and Supermatch M1As.
By far my favorite from an ergonomics / shooting standpoint is the Standard. I sold the 16 and SM due to sloppy quality of construction. The Standard wasn't perfect either but it was good enough to keep.
Personally if I were buying a M14 clone I would not buy another SAI product. In my experience they are slip shod in their manufacturing... I gave them ample chance and they fell short of what I think we're reasonable expectations.
By far my favorite from an ergonomics / shooting standpoint is the Standard. I sold the 16 and SM due to sloppy quality of construction. The Standard wasn't perfect either but it was good enough to keep.
Personally if I were buying a M14 clone I would not buy another SAI product. In my experience they are slip shod in their manufacturing... I gave them ample chance and they fell short of what I think we're reasonable expectations.
Springfield rifles are hit and miss. But make up the majority of M14 type rifles out there. This is your best bet for finding a good deal on a used rifle under $1500
Norinco and Polytech rifles can be nice if you replace many of the factory parts, older rifles that have had USGI bolt conversions are your best(safest ) bet.
Ive seen plenty of nice Fulton Armory, LRB and James River Armory rifles. They are more expensive and are generally worth it.
If I was going to buy another M14 rifle today I'd buy a new 18" Rockola and not have to do a thing to it, but it's gonna be an expensive affair compared to a used springfield standard.
Norinco and Polytech rifles can be nice if you replace many of the factory parts, older rifles that have had USGI bolt conversions are your best(safest ) bet.
Ive seen plenty of nice Fulton Armory, LRB and James River Armory rifles. They are more expensive and are generally worth it.
If I was going to buy another M14 rifle today I'd buy a new 18" Rockola and not have to do a thing to it, but it's gonna be an expensive affair compared to a used springfield standard.
Reloadron
Contributing Member
What make would you suggest? I have heard that SA isn't what they once were but haven't seen any of their newer stuff up close and personal either.
I now remember the outfit I mentioned earlier on LI NY, it is LRB Arms. They claim to be the only guys on the block making Forged M14 and AR15 receivers.
These are some of the LRB Arms Standard M14 Rifles. Not quite a M14 semi-automatic clone for the budget conscious but you get a supposed high end forged receiver. Standard and medium match rifles fall in the $2,500 to $3,000 range.
I have a personal irony with the M14 rifle in that I trained in the Marine Corps with the M14. I remember my rifle, my first M14 rifle was TRW manufacture. The irony was I eventually ended up here in Cleveland, Ohio working for then TRW at the same plant my first M14 was made in. While the M14 had not been manufactured for decades the old rifle test range was still there when I started working there. I retired from that plant last year.
Personally I never had any interest in the SOCOM or any other flavors other than the Standard and NM rifles built off the Standard. Just never tripped my trigger I guess. If I were to add another I might consider one of the LRB guns after doing some research. My current M1A NM gun was a gift from my wife in the early 90s and as I mentioned it has always shot fine, shoots better than me anyway.
So we have SA and LRB, who else besides Polytech makes the critters? Anyone have any thoughts? I think at one time maybe Federal Ordnance? Not sure but as to new production (current production) anyone know of any manufacturers?
Ron
I'm no expert, but own many battle rifles. The .308 and M1A are king of the hill IMO. Excellent mated caliber, well designed rifle, overall just simply the cats meow.
About the only .308 battle rifle that can compete, IMO, is a DSA or well-made FN FAL. Another top shelf rifle in .308.
The M1A is wonderful and will serve you well if you are killing soda cans or defending the homestead.
About the only .308 battle rifle that can compete, IMO, is a DSA or well-made FN FAL. Another top shelf rifle in .308.
The M1A is wonderful and will serve you well if you are killing soda cans or defending the homestead.
OP wants cool and CLASSIC!! The AR-10 is not
Myself and many others appreciate the look and feel M-14 has, it is a beautiful weapon. There are no better factory iron sights in the world..... John Garand got it right!
Your right though, the AR-10 is much cheaper platform to get into espicially if you want a scope.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi giggity,
Dad has an M1A that he calls his "Sunday go to meeting rifle." I've often suspected he uses furniture polish on the stock and forearm but I can't prove it. It is a beautiful rifle and has killed a lot of coyotes.
johnmcl
Member
I'm a fan of the Springfield Loaded model in the M1A lineup. I find it a reasonable option of cost versus features. You certainly get the National Match rear sights, plus the medium vs. standard barrel. Mine is not the only opinion as I see quite a few Loadeds on the firing line at our monthly competitions. I won't duplicate the thoughts or the specs here as there's several really good forums specializing in this rifle.
I'm suspect of generalized comments as these <fill in the blank> guns aren't what they used to be. Given the volume of any production run, there's certainly a lemon or two to be expected. We see that in cars, computers, cameras, and the list goes on. Springfield will not tolerate a risk to their reputation by pushing out a consistently bad product. Show me some numbers and I'll be convinced. Anecdotal evidence bores the heck out of me.
I'm suspect of generalized comments as these <fill in the blank> guns aren't what they used to be. Given the volume of any production run, there's certainly a lemon or two to be expected. We see that in cars, computers, cameras, and the list goes on. Springfield will not tolerate a risk to their reputation by pushing out a consistently bad product. Show me some numbers and I'll be convinced. Anecdotal evidence bores the heck out of me.
I bought a Fulton Armory M39 EMR. It's not classic, but it sure is nice. I carried an M39 around Iraq, and decided I wanted one. Considering what it is, it's worth every penny, and there are quite a few of those. Fulton Armory guaranteed 1.5 MOA, and I've found it does much better with my reloads. If I decide to pick up another M1A, it'll probably be a Springfield, but no regrets on the Fulton Armory. If it fits your budget, they are worth a look.
Several people have suggested a loaded or NM model, I would advise against that for your first M1A. Both of those models have a heavier barrel profile.
The standard weight barrel profile on a M-14 balances the best without a doubt.
The loaded and NM rifles have their place, but as a fun shooting gun you wont appreciate the added weight in the front end.
The standard weight barrel profile on a M-14 balances the best without a doubt.
The loaded and NM rifles have their place, but as a fun shooting gun you wont appreciate the added weight in the front end.
As a curio and relic they have a place. Some would say the Mosin Nagant delivers better value for the money.
In terms of being a top tier battle rifle the M14/M1A has about the shortest career in service of many. There are specific reasons for it being popular, but it has little to do with being ergonomically or mechanically superior. Just cool old wood and steel, for the most part.
The gun is just an update of the Garand to include the magazine it should have gotten from the first, and chambered in a much larger cartridge than he intended. Which goes to it being nearly impossible to use as a military full auto rifle, and also why it was quickly superseded by the M16.
They are a part of our history and available, unlike many others, get your money's worth in the purchase and enjoy it in it's simplest form. They are a great example of the era when the veteran's were celebrating their passing and held contests to prove how good they were. That's when 3 Gun started - when .30s were being obsoleted world wide, and old guys couldn't understand why.
If anything, they gave us ample reasons to move on, and still serve as an example of what we don't need in combat today. That is what most Curios and Relics do best.
In terms of being a top tier battle rifle the M14/M1A has about the shortest career in service of many. There are specific reasons for it being popular, but it has little to do with being ergonomically or mechanically superior. Just cool old wood and steel, for the most part.
The gun is just an update of the Garand to include the magazine it should have gotten from the first, and chambered in a much larger cartridge than he intended. Which goes to it being nearly impossible to use as a military full auto rifle, and also why it was quickly superseded by the M16.
They are a part of our history and available, unlike many others, get your money's worth in the purchase and enjoy it in it's simplest form. They are a great example of the era when the veteran's were celebrating their passing and held contests to prove how good they were. That's when 3 Gun started - when .30s were being obsoleted world wide, and old guys couldn't understand why.
If anything, they gave us ample reasons to move on, and still serve as an example of what we don't need in combat today. That is what most Curios and Relics do best.
If you want MOA measured accuracy go with a National Match barrel. I own a Loaded and think it's the best value, especially if you want to consider an EBR type stock instead of bedding.
If you're OK with Minute of Coyote then the Socom is quicker to move and shoot but not great on a target range.
All of the rifles that completed the accuracy challenge on M14Forum.com were NM barrels.
If you're OK with Minute of Coyote then the Socom is quicker to move and shoot but not great on a target range.
All of the rifles that completed the accuracy challenge on M14Forum.com were NM barrels.
A fair assessment, but they are still used in combat, admittedly with modification and minimal use.
Jackal
Member
The 18" Scout Squad is often considered the most versatile M1A model. Its accurate enough, handy enough and has an optics mount included, which is an ideal place to mount a red dot sight or low power optic. I have had both the M1A standard and the Scout Squad and I could not really tell any accuracy difference between the two. I sold them both though and ordered a Vepr .308..... (Vepr is 1/2-1/3 the price, just as or more accurate, easily accept q/d scope rails and its still an all steel 'n wood rifle).
M14 is enjoying a resurgence in popularity due in part to the troops returning from the Mideast who were exposed to them in the DMR role. The M14 has larger tolerances than the AR platform so it can deal with being dirty better but it is far more accurate than an AK. The military spends a few hundred dollars on a SAGE EBR stock and convers hundreds of guns sitting in storage for decades into Designated Marksman Rifles and "untrained snipers" start removing bad guys at distances too far for .556. Oh, and it's redeployment means it now has a longer service life than most. I wonder how many guys would want an M16 made in the '60s in combat?
I'm aware of the DMR situation, accessing the guns was a major difficulty as many had to be returned from Reserve and Guard units in parade service. Most of the rest had been demilled or given away as aid.
There were very few actually converted and issued to units, and a lot of guys in those units are on record as saying they never saw them in the field. They stayed locked in racks in the wire.
The whole long range shootout situation was initially caused by a few snipers using larger caliber weapons, often Russian .50 MG's for which they had little other use. Even the .308 is outmatched by a weapon that can still shoot twice as far accurately mounted on a tripod with T&E.
It also goes to what other tactics and crew served weapons we employed to halt the problem, which was. And that isn't talked about much, largely because we didn't want to give them an understanding of what we were using that defeated them. So most of us haven't heard about it.
That tends to enhance the role of the M14 as some sort of salvation, when in reality other methods predominately shot up the MG's and the practice was abandoned. Like, keeping overwatch in likely areas with a sniper team. Entirely why they were there in the first place.
Carrying a .308 DMR in the field means being a high priority target - it's dramatically different than the M4 and like the guy talking on a radio handset, gets a lot of attention. The DMR program had successful results using M16's in that role as the weapons carrier blended in and wasn't a priority target in the opening seconds of an ambush.
Hence, why so many of the M14's weren't used, same as if you were carrying an M249. Too important to ignore.
We had over 100,000 M4's and M16's incountry at the time, a few thousand M14's didn't tilt the scales of battle. Tactics did.
There were very few actually converted and issued to units, and a lot of guys in those units are on record as saying they never saw them in the field. They stayed locked in racks in the wire.
The whole long range shootout situation was initially caused by a few snipers using larger caliber weapons, often Russian .50 MG's for which they had little other use. Even the .308 is outmatched by a weapon that can still shoot twice as far accurately mounted on a tripod with T&E.
It also goes to what other tactics and crew served weapons we employed to halt the problem, which was. And that isn't talked about much, largely because we didn't want to give them an understanding of what we were using that defeated them. So most of us haven't heard about it.
That tends to enhance the role of the M14 as some sort of salvation, when in reality other methods predominately shot up the MG's and the practice was abandoned. Like, keeping overwatch in likely areas with a sniper team. Entirely why they were there in the first place.
Carrying a .308 DMR in the field means being a high priority target - it's dramatically different than the M4 and like the guy talking on a radio handset, gets a lot of attention. The DMR program had successful results using M16's in that role as the weapons carrier blended in and wasn't a priority target in the opening seconds of an ambush.
Hence, why so many of the M14's weren't used, same as if you were carrying an M249. Too important to ignore.
We had over 100,000 M4's and M16's incountry at the time, a few thousand M14's didn't tilt the scales of battle. Tactics did.
No one said they tilted the scales, but the M39 I had in Iraq didn't sit in the armory, either. The primary reasons some of our guys chose not to use them was ammunition compatibility and weight. It had little or nothing to do with being a higher priority target. All of this is pretty much meaningless to this discussion. We aren't talking about patrolling the streets of Iraq here, we're talking about a civilian shooter wanting a nice weapon. He will certainly find that in an M14 variant.
Well, the reason the M-14 isn't being used much anymore is that it's a tool of a rifleman. The marksmanship training of the military (with the exception of the Marines) is more geared up for a man with a rifle instead. The days of Belleau Woods where Marines picked off the Hun from 800 yards away with '03 Springfield rifles and something that could also be accomplished with an M-14 is a distant memory to most. These days we tend to avoid getting much past spitting distance and blaze away so yes, the accuracy and power of the M-14 especially at range is wasted on the current doctrines. In a few instances, mainly in Afghanistan, the longer range of the M-14 could be put to good use but for the most part, we could just as well arm ourselves with AKs like the Muj since the AK's accuracy (or lack thereof) generally isn't impacted all that severely at close ranges.
- Status
