M1A Question

mshootnit said:

This is essentially the rifle our country took into Vietnam. The M1A is a copy of the rifle our country developed as an upgrade to the M1 rifle. In that regard their goals were to
1. Reduce weight
2. Increase firepower to counter the new assault rifles.
3 Maintain or enhance reliability.
4 Maintain the excellent sights and hit probability
5 Maintain the familiar controls/ ergonomics of the M1.
The barrel was shortened and a flash suppressor added. A 20 round detachable magazine was added. The rifle was select fire capable. The gas system was changed so that the op rod and piston became separate.
Once you become accustomed to it, the rifle handles quite well. After all it sports only a light contour 22" barrel and relatively short LOP. It has less recoil than the M1 and faster follow up shots are possible. It is very accurate. The standard 2 stage trigger is outstanding with a clean break.
Optics mounting can be done with several mounts, bassett, a.r.m.s., sadlak. The stock would need a cheek pad for a cheek weld. An optic makes the rifle unwieldy, but gives increased accuracy, and the ability to see targets 30 min earlier and 30 min later in the day.
The rifle offers slightly better reliability, similar accuracy and more terminal performance compared to an AR15. However the AR15 user will enjoy less recoil, lighter weight, as well as more hits on target in a given time. The AR15 is also more wieldy with an optic on board.
In hand to hand combat one would surely desire the extra length and weight of the M1A with bayonet.
Standard M1A rifles with GI contour stocks are as heavy as you want to go in a carrying rifle. Weight will add up quickly if you opt for heavier bedded stocks, or medium/ heavy barrels.
You will be very hard pressed to find an AR10 style rifle with a 22" barrel as light as the standard M1A. Its shortened Garand receiver and bolt are a more weight efficient design than the AR in spite of being all steel. Because of its remote short stroke enclosed piston, steel receiver, 2 lug bolt with massive lugs and no gas rings, and lightweight carrier, the M14 is a greatly superior rifle to almost all AR10s where carrying and open sights shooting are concerned. However a purpose built military grade lightweight AR10 with an 18.5" barrel and magnified combat optic would have some advantages requiring serious consideration.

Click to expand...

MTMilitiaman said:

The M14 is absolutely not more reliable than the AR/M16.

The M14 was tested in 1968 and found to have a Mean Rounds Between Failure of 599 rounds.
https://www.lightfighter.net/topic/m14-rifle-question-1
Even in 1968, against pre-A1 M16s, the M14 wasn't necessarily more reliable.This was tested down in Panama and the military concluded that direct comparison was difficult, but there were conditions under which the M16 proved to be more reliable than the M14, and this was back when they were still trying to work out the propellant issues with the original "Mattel Deathtraps."
The M16 is a pretty tightly closed system that tends to prevent the entrance of mud and debris into the receiver, whereas the M14 is an open system that invites mud and debris into the system. InRange TV on Youtube did mud tests with the M1 and various AR15s, the it wasn't even close. The ARs blew the M1 out of the water:
1960s Colt SP-1 AR-15

More modern AR-15

M1 Garand (SPOILER: it ain't pretty)

French MAS , M1A, and AR in a slightly different style of mud test

Crane tested the M4 with the standard carbine length gas system and with the midlength gas system and found the Mean Rounds Between Failure to be 836 for the carbine length gas system and 1993 for the midlength gas system. My Colt 6960 is a lot better representation to the quality and performance of the military rifles than the Springfield Armory M1A is to the M14. In other words, the M1A is of inferior quality to the military M14s whereas there are many AR15s that are equal to or better than the military rifles in every respect. So the short answer is no, the M1A is not likely to be more reliable than an AR15. Now an AR10, with its lack of standardization, is another issue. But in my experience, that too is likely to not end well for the M1A.
http://soldiersystems.net/2018/05/1...s-system-testing-shows-increased-performance/

Click to expand...

mshootnit said:

I simply have to disagree about the reliability. Those " boys playing in the mud" videos are fine but my grandpa and two great uncles carried the M1 in France and Korea, and you know, its funny, I don't recall any complaining about the " open system" causing problems in battle.

Click to expand...

mshootnit said:

I mean I simply have to disagree about the reliability. Those " boys playing in the mud" videos are fine but two of my great uncles carried the M1 in France and Korea, and you know, its funny, I don't recall any complaining about the " open system" causing problems in battle. My relative fought and walked across the entire country of France on foot, my other talked about what it was like to dive down in a lake to get away from Chinese machine gun.
Aside from them, there are the quotes from marines in Korea and from General Patton to attest to the reliability of the M1.
Second, during manual of arms, if we are being honest there are far more hiccups with an AR15 than with an M1 or M14. AR's with M4 feedramps are much less susceptible to binding of a new round at the nose or riding over the top, but they do happen. M14 mags and just the system as a whole is much more reliable when loading. And you have a charging handle to kick or whack to open the action.
There were hiccups with the AR15 in the beginning, but issues continue. The US fighters at Wanat were all found to have locked up M4 rifles.
Articles on jammed M4s:
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/20/cover-up-army-historian-says-report-on-deadly-afgh/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.military.com/dodbuzz/2009/10/13/small-arms-jammed-at-wanat/amp
Jessica Lynch testified that her rifle was jammed so that a superior officer could not clear it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...in-iraq/092871f9-440e-4305-9b86-3ff2474643d0/
Now on the other hand can you show me one documented instance where a squad was found to have been overrun and killed where their M1's or M14's were jammed up or melted? One article where the M14 jammed and caused the loss of lives in Vietnam?
I will wait.

Click to expand...

MTMilitiaman said:

Doesn't matter if you agree or not. Facts don't care about your feelings. It has been tested, and at no point has the M1 Garand or the M14 been demonstratively more reliable than the M16/AR15. Even back when the M16 didn't have chrome lining and they were still figuring out the powders to use in it, the M14 was not more reliable. Anecdotal evidence has to be taken with a grain of salt. Police know that witnesses under duress are rarely reliable. You can have five people under duress witness the same event and get five different stories. That is why the military and law enforcement agencies conduct testing under controlled and verifiable conditions. I was issued an M16A4. It was far more reliable for me under far more adverse circumstances than my M1A ever was.
The problem is that the M1/M14 is one of those designs with a certain type of fan that refuses to acknowledge reality. They still feel like the rifle got cheated, like it was never given a chance. The military spent 13 years developing the M14, they invested a butt load of expense and research into it, and then got it into the field and realized it was the wrong tool for the job. Whether or not you want to admit it, there is a long list of valid reasons the military ditched the M14 in favor of the M16. The M14s expense and difficulty in manufacture, its size, and it relative lack of reliability compared to newer designs from projected adversaries was among those reasons.
If you like the M1A, fine. It does have a certain mystic to it, thanks in part to myths perpetuated about it by its rabid fan base. I like the M1 too. But I am realistic enough to accept the design and appreciate it despite its faults. The M1/M1A is a range rifle for me. If I need to get work done and absolutely need to know my rifle is going to be accurate and reliable, the M1s stay in the closet, and I grab an AR. Because the AR is, through both testing and experience, the more refined, more reliable design.

And this took me exactly 12 seconds on Google to find:
https://firearmusernetwork.com/2015/03/06/m14-reliability-problems/
https://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/

Click to expand...

mshootnit said:

You failed to deliver. I read both articles. Still waiting on that article where the M1 or M14 failed in combat and cost the lives of US fighters.

Still waiting.

Click to expand...

MTMilitiaman said:

It is apparent that you are in denial. The M14 had problems with both reliability and accuracy from day one. After spending 13 years developing the system, the military was unwilling to put in the additional time necessary to make the system reliable in combat. Some units spent the time to make it accurate under range conditions, but even then it was quickly surpassed by the AR/M16. I've already provided plenty of source material on the faults of the M14, including its lack of reliability, and other reasons why it was replaced so quickly. If you want to continue living in denial and assume those reliability problems never cost soldiers their lives, you can.
Plenty of accounts exist of the rifle being despised by those who are issued it. The Estonians called it "fully terrible." My brother had one issued to his squad in Iraq, but thought it laughable that it required an armorer to clean. It ended up bouncing around in the Humvee, but was never used or even considered for use outside the wire. Which if you do enough research, is probably 3/4 of the post Vietnam battlefield "experience" the design has. Battlefield experience in Vietnam lasted all of three or four years, before it was almost completely phased out. There is certainly little in the way of actual experience to deserve its stellar reputation for anything. The rifle had a varsity price tag but failed to live up to the hype and ended up warming a bench for the majority of its career. Its performance in every theater was underwhelming and it was replaced in everything from battle rifle to sniper rifle as soon as the military could properly test and vet other systems. It remains a fun and nostalgic rifle at the range, but was obsolete as a combat rifle before it even saw combat. But you ask people to take the wive's tails with a grain of salt and they get all butt hurt like you just called their children ugly.

Have fun with your M1A. Enjoy it. Nobody cares. But don't expect everyone else to be so adverse to reality and reason.

Click to expand...

FL-NC said:

The price and availability of good M14 magazines alone is enough to give me a nosebleed.

Click to expand...

FL-NC said:

because it was "available"- not that it was the best thing going, but it was the best thing that was available at the time,

Click to expand...

Whiskey11 said:

I will say that for me the decision to get an M1A was entirely in the "fun to shoot" category and zero in the "is practical for xyz".

It also has a bit of "Ford Mustang vs BMW M3" feel to it. On paper, performance wise, the two cars are nearly identical but the feeling of actually achieving that performance is entirely different. Wild horse vs precision instrument. It's far easier to get the performance out of the BMW but it also lacks the character and challenge of eeking every ounce of performance out of the Mustang and the sense of satisfaction in doing it. No sane person would argue the Mustang is the easier car to do well in, but it's a heck of a lot more fun to do it in.

Likewise... the M14 has a character an AR10 does not. Clearly if your goal is outright performance, the AR10 is the superior choice. Mechanically they may be similar in performance but the AR10 is easier to accomplish those results with. But for me, there is more fun in the challenge of doing well with a less ideal platform than in just doing well.

Besides, I already own the "practical" rifle in my AR15. It serves as duty gun, home defense rifle and range plinking toy. But when I want to have real fun, the steel and wood rifles come out to play. I have a 1903 Springfield that I adore for the same reasons as the M1A. It's not perfect, but it sure is guaranteed fun!

As with everything, mastery of something is more about knowing the shortcomings than just doing well at it. Know your tool and its strengths and weaknesses. Play to the strengths and not the weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Nature Boy said:

The best are made by Checkmate and can be found for ~$20 each

Click to expand...

Charlie98 said:

I call the M1 Garand and the M1a... 'very physical rifles' to shoot and operate. Everything is very slam, bam, chink-chink, pow! It's a lot of fun.

Click to expand...

Orlando said:

20rd mags, where??

Click to expand...