Sad realization about M1A's...

There are no M14s in service, are you people crazy?

I mean, who would want such a horrible weapon?



Janes Defense doesn't know anything about weapons either.....

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr060510_1_n.shtml

And no, Fulton is not in on the govt contract, they are making a semi only clone for civilian sales.

Rockstar... I read your comments I read carefully what I got from it was this, your expectations exceed the production quality of the gun. I have read a wide variety of posts and or threads such as yours. While technical and generally accurate they, like yours, all over look one thing, to make something exactly as you want it you have to modify and or upgrade and tinker with it. If unwilling to do so you will never get what you want unless you Pay five times the price for someone else to tinker with it.
My friends refer to me as Mr. Warrenty, since many times on purchasing a product I wind up with compliants like yours. Then after I settle in and make it my own I am happy with it.
So my point is this, Lower your expectations or accept that you will need to modify the rifle to meet your standards.
BTW while never actually shooting the platform each and every Person I know that owns an M1A has said they are fine shooters out of the box, and all have added to and or tinkered with them a little to get what they wanted out of it.
Sorry my original post was snide but my statement still stands, These are great rifles, you seem to want and or expect more than Stock spec's allow for.

Add On:
Disappointment means my expextaions are not met.
Disillusioned means I see reality.
I can choose to be disappointed or disillusioned.

There are no M14s in service, are you people crazy?

Click to expand...

It's a stop gap until better solutions are avilable. It's main claim to fame during OIF and OEF is that it was available free through regular channels to units that did not have the budget or authority to obtain mission specific weapons outside their MTOE.

I mean, who would want such a horrible weapon?

Click to expand...

Actual user comments from over in the sandbox seem to have been rather less universally enthusiastic than internet M14 fans would like. Mediocre performance of M14s seems to be one of the reasons the USMC decided to give their DMR's M16-based weapons, for instance. The Army, likewise, opted for a non-M14 platforms for semi-auto sniping and DMR work, SOCOM is ditching what M14s it has in favor of SR-25s and (starting this year) SCAR-H etc.

Actual user comments from over in the sandbox seem to have been rather less universally enthusiastic than internet M14 fans would like. Mediocre performance of M14s seems to be one of the reasons the USMC decided to give their DMR's M16-based weapons, for instance. The Army, likewise, opted for a non-M14 platforms for semi-auto sniping and DMR work, SOCOM is ditching what M14s it has in favor of SR-25s and (starting this year) SCAR-H etc.

Click to expand...

What sort of problems are they having?

As I mentioned before I always wonder about the open action. I've heard soldiers criticize the Beretta M9, saying they don't like the open slide as a lot of sand and dust gets into the action. I don't see how a greasy M-14 would fair better, although I could see it as not being as sensitive to it, which I assume was the case with the M1. Perhaps being exposed that way gives the action a chance to clear itself instead where debris in other designs(FAL sand cuts anyone?) wouldn't be able to.

It's a stop gap until better solutions are avilable.

Click to expand...

Which means that it is the best rifle for the job.

That's sort of everyone's point, that it's the best tool available.

ANYTHING can be improved, there are always better solutions.

What sort of problems are they having?

Click to expand...

Well, off the top of my head, I bet you are going to have serious function and reliability issues anytime you take a rifle that was last issued in the 1960s and put it back into use - except without any trained armorers, tools, or manuals.

As I recall, the Army was relying heavily on NRA High Power shooters for the training and knowledge to get these rifles back into service. One thing about this war, it has definitely highlighted the many beneficial points of an armed populace outside the National Guard.

1) Without relying on ammunition plants selling to civilians, the U.S. would be unable to keep up with demand.

2) Training and knowledge of civilians have been critical in the Army's training efforts. Whether it is NRA High Power shooters teaching DMs or Gunsite teaching deploying National Guard troops.

3) Look at all the COTS accessories from the civilian market that are being swept off the shelf by the military now that they realize the need for them

Hope this isn't a repeat.

Anyone have first-hand experience with the Springfield SOCOM 16?
I have a real hankering for one, but sure would appreciate some
feedback. Thanks.

Well, off the top of my head, I bet you are going to have serious function and reliability issues anytime you take a rifle that was last issued in the 1960s and put it back into use - except without any trained armorers, tools, or manuals.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

As if to emphasize the point about there being no support structure in the military for the M14, take a good look at that picture posted by TexasRifleman. Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, the M14 on the far right doesn't have a bayonet lug on the flash suppressor. Looks to me like some poor armorer probably had to scrounge a commercial flash suppressor from state side. This is a small and inconsequential thing, but it makes me wonder what kind of shape the rest of the rifle is in if parts are that hard to come by. Thanks a lot Slick Willy for cutting up all those serviceable M14s.

In my opinion its a testament to the design of the M14 that it has performed as well as it has considering the lack of support, knowledge, tools, parts, etc.

Which means that it is the best rifle for the job.

That's sort of everyone's point, that it's the best tool available.

ANYTHING can be improved, there are always better solutions.

Click to expand...

Its what they have available in inventory to use. I too believe its a stop gap. Its not that its the "best" tool, just the only tool at the moment. I'd be surprised if the next one wasnt based on the M16 in some way, and especially in a caliber that will work with just an upper swap.

Anyone have first-hand experience with the Springfield SOCOM 16?

Click to expand...

I have a SOCOM. Mines been fun, and no major problems. Springfield has some issues with all models, you just need to work around them sometimes. My only complaints about the SOCOM are, the rail and the stock. The rail is NOT mil spec, and some mounts wont work with it. The stock is just a poorly done over GI glass stock with a bad paint job. If you get one, you may want to buy one from Fred and do it over how you like.

The SOCOM's sights are made for close range shooting and can be a chore to shoot with any precision at 100 yards and beyond. For fast, up close shooting, they are fine. I like mine best with an Aimpoint on it.

Some people complain about the brake and gas system. They seem worried about noise and function. I never had any problem with the rifle working, and I never noticed it being loud. The only time I got any real flash out of it was using hot Brazilian CBC surplus, which also gave a fireball out of my Bush and standard length rifles that have flash suppressors on them.

While we keep waiting for all these wonderful weapons that are so much better to get adopted, "'ole stop gap" just keeps getting the job done, and continues to receive updates to make it even better.

I guess it's similar to the "stop gap" M16 and M4 that seem to persevere despite being written off for dead numerous times, while we continue to wait for next great uber tactical HK prototype creation that is so much better, but oddly enough never seems to go anywhere except the recycle bin.

The one thing that always amazed me about the M14 is, it was one, if not the shortest lived and issued rifle our military used, but somehow its the greatest, and people seem willing to argue on endlessly in its defense. The despised M16 series and all its variations is now I believe, the longest lived.

I also get a kick out of the MBR designation these different rifles get. All the "MBR's" arent, at least in any major army around the world I'm aware of.

I always thought the rifle you had in your hands at any given moment was your main battle rifle.

Anyone have first-hand experience with the Springfield SOCOM 16?
I have a real hankering for one, but sure would appreciate some
feedback. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I have a SOCOM II, the version with 4 forward rails by VLTOR. I've tried a bunch of accessories and they all fit all the rails just fine. The stock flakes off its black coating if you look at it wrong. Using a 2005 Lake City XM PD lot, I have had three jams in about 150 rounds fired--the brass would not extract from the chamber. I had to wail on the charging handle with a brass mallet to extract. I'm not sure if the rifle is still being "broken in" or what--I think I've only fired maybe 200 rounds so far.

The muzzle flash can be exciting, but I don't find it distracting, with earplugs AND earmuffs, and glasses.

Lake City 150 gr. chronied an average of 2650 fps. 180 grain Federal got in the 2400-2480 fps range.

Accuracy on mine seems like it is 3 MOA, but I'm not sure. I was getting like 4+ MOA with the iron sights, but everytime I shoot it is hot with the sun out and sweat is running in my eyes. I've yet to try it out under ideal conditions to see how good it really is.

Ya know the other thing I can't help but wonder, is how long does a weapon have to serve to no longer be labeled Mr. Stop Gap?

AK 103, bear in mind I'm not picking on you or your post at all because you happened to use that terminology. It's just that I keep hearing that stop gap term thrown around by a lot of folks to describe the M14 when used as a long range precision platform.

The M14 served as a precision sniping platform in Vietnam. It performed that role through most of the '80s before being replaced by the bolt action M24 in the late '80s. Somehow it still hangs around today as a viable semi automatic long range platform.

Anyone that has ever had the pleasure of visiting the Springfield Armory Museum has seen the various Garand prototypes that led up to the Garand as we know it. There are also mid-war prototypes that were an evolution of the Garand as we know it, but never produced. For example, the Garand T20 that John Garand modified to select fire, and to take 20 round BAR magazines. Since there was something theoretically "better" on the drawing board that was in the works before WW2 ended, does that relegate Mr. Garand's original rifle to being a stop gap measure during WW2? I think not.

I guess it's similar to the "stop gap" M16 and M4 that seem to persevere despite being written off for dead numerous times, while we continue to wait for next great uber tactical HK prototype creation that is so much better, but oddly enough never seems to go anywhere except the recycle bin.

Click to expand...

Just because other weapons weren't adopted as replacements doesn't mean the ones they were designed to replace are superior. Snail bureaucracy and money politics have a way of stifling change when it's called for and demanding it sometimes when it's not.

What? Nobody has posted a link to the web's premier source of info for the M1A/M14 rifle yet? That has to be fixed!

http://www.imageseek.com/m1a

More info that you can shake a 308 hurlin' stick at!



And for those who wanna start talking about barrel break in, here are first five shots out of a Krieger 1-10 stainless... iron sights, on a sandbag... M118LR. No cleaning between shots, what is this a space gun? No its a battle rifle!




Yeah, you've probably guessed it by now, I absolutely hate my M1A. Especially all those TRW parts, the McMillian stock, the rear-lugged receiver bedded in Devcon by Hook Boutin... unitized gas system by the same dude... in fact, I've had it with this rifle. I'll sell it to the first person who offers me $5K. Thanks.

The only reason the M14 was the "shortest lived and issued rifle" because some fellow named McNamara shoved another rifle down the throat of the services. Not saying he was right or wrong but otherwise, the history of the rifle would be very different. I'm not surprised that the M14 still makes its presence felt around the world. Not so well known too is that the M14 rifle remains in use today aboard U.S. Navy ships and submarines.

Anyway... That said, I don't have major complaints about my OlyArms version of the CAR-15. It rests right nicely alongside my M1A. I'm fond of both.

Just because other weapons weren't adopted as replacements doesn't mean the ones they were designed to replace are superior.

Click to expand...

Yeah exactly, and that is the point you don't understand. You can look at any conflict in our nation's past and probably find weapons on the drawing board that were "better" than what the individual soldier had. All that means exactly Jack Sierra if the weapons never left the drawing board and made it to the field. Instead of whining about what should have been made and how there are so many "better systems" that could have been adopted, lets give the M14 at least a little bit of its due.

Why is it so hard for the M14 detractors to admit the rifle works, and give it at least a tip of the cap as a viable system?

1) The gun wasn't designed to prevent slamfires. (The SKS has similar problems but it's a MUCH older design, the US military knew about the problem and didn't try to fix it)

Click to expand...

Actually, I think this is incorrect. The M-14 benefitted from the wisdom gained on the M1 Garand, an even older design than the SKS. They simply lightened the firing pin, as well as the other mods posters pointed out. So they did fix it (relatively), just earlier in the lineage. Mr. Stoner apparently never got the memo, and relearned the whole slamfire issue again.

2) The gun wasn't designed to contain slamfires to a closed bolt position. (Potentially fatal to shooter)

Click to expand...

There are in battery slamfires and out-of-battery slamfires. Isn't this just the definition of those two types? The out-of-battery type are dangerous on any rifle, and as far as I can tell are due to one of four causes:

1. Commercial "sensitive" primers rather than military style primers (I have read that this is an issue potentially independent of the firing pin)
2. stuck firing pin on a free-floating design (cleaning/lube issue)
3. primer set too high
4. excessive parts wear (safety bridge, pin, etc.)

I would even speculate that an unlucky chunk of debris could cause an out of battery slamfire on any semiauto.

He doesn't state that the M14/ M1A wasn't designed to prevent slamfires, he repeatedly states that the ONLY WAY TO PREVENT THEM IS WITH HARD BELOW FLUSH PRIMERS. So the only "designed" aspect to prevent slamfires is not intrinsic to the rifles design.

Click to expand...

As I understand it, the hard primer is to counteract the free-floating firing pin design. An above-flush primer would seem to be an issue on any large caliber semi-auto because it's the bolt slamming forward on the primer.

For crying out loud theres a guy making firing pins for SKS's that prevent this condition and he's only charging $3.00 for them!

Click to expand...

It sounds very simple, but I think there are design tradeoffs. The SKS was originally designed with a firing pin spring to prevent slamfires, but they took it out! Colt tried a firing pin spring on the M-16 to resolve slamfires, but opted for a lighter pin design instead. Why? probably reliability. You can go titanium, but there are problems there as well. Go any lighter and you may end up with broken pins. I'm sure it was a tradeoff of some very low risk of slamfire vs. reliability. It is a combat rifle at heart after all.

3) The gas system is not adjustable to accomodate different powder charges and bullet weights. (batters the gun to death with commercial ammo)

Click to expand...

This seems to have been dealt with in other comments.

4) The bedding material is only rated to last for 1000 rounds maximum. (1 year for average match shooter). I'm still amazed that several posts claim that bedding that degrades from solvent contact is OK when we've had JB Weld since 1968. If bedding is only an accuracy/ match grade thing, it would seem screamingly obvious to me that making the bedding out of something thats solvent resistant is a good idea.

Click to expand...

I am not aware that any manufacturer actually does a bedding job on the rifle - is that not between you and your gunsmith or your rifle builder? There are many different ways to bed the M1A that I have seen, some probably better than others. You can even do it yourself and use any material you like.

5) The barrel must be cleaned from the muzzle. (Much harder than it needs to be)

Click to expand...

This doesn't seem too out of line for a semiauto. As someone pointed out, there are alternatives, like boresnakes that allow you to clean the other way if you wish. Probably the most important thing is to clean it upside down because of the gas system, which doesn't make it any easier.

6) Bore solvents supposedly deteriorate the bedding. (Seriously stupid)

Click to expand...

Again, as someone said, this is only if you choose to bed it in a wood or fiberglass stock. If you choose the evil SAGE chassis, it's not an issue, because it is instantly bedded. Frankly, I think any wood or fiberglass rifle you choose to bed would suffer this problem. It's a wood stock problem, not an M1A problem.

7) The ejection system batters brass so hard that reloads aren't realistic. (Annoying but common enough among all military semiauto rifles)

Click to expand...

As beaten to death, I don't think this rifle was ever intended for reloads, and I'm not sure it is any harder on the brass than other .30 cal semiautos.

8) One MOA is considered the pinnacle of accuracy from this platform. (Depressing considering the folklore about how amazing it is)

Click to expand...

Sub-MOA and semiauto battle rifles just aren't something that goes together as far as I can tell. As I am learning, sub-MOA is important to snipers, but not "riflemen." The MOA standard for riflemen is 4 MOA, based on what I've read. I think the M1A is considered more a rifleman's rifle than a sniper. As I understand it, the more you accurize a rifle, the more finnicky it gets (except going with a bolt action). That said, I'm not sure there are semiautos out there that significantly exceed the accuracy of the M1A, and many that do much worse.

9) Well bedded rifles require a hammer and a brass drift punch to field strip. (Again, annoying but "match" stuff is generally a PITA to disassemble)

Click to expand...

Bedding is tight for a reason.

10) 211+ quality assurance testing fixtures, 400+ manufacturing steps, all based on M1 fixtures and jigs, to produce a rifle design that was/is flawed from the beginning.

Click to expand...

It's not perfect for sure, and it's from a different era and philosophy of design for sure, but it does seem to do the job after all these years.

The one thing that always amazed me about the M14 is, it was one, if not the shortest lived and issued rifle our military used, but somehow its the greatest, and people seem willing to argue on endlessly in its defense. The despised M16 series and all its variations is now I believe, the longest lived.

Click to expand...

This is one statement I don't get. If I'm not mistaken, the M-14 has been continuously issued in one form or another since it was originally built. Granted, except for 1960-67 or so, it has always been for special purposes, but it has been issued nonetheless. The Army is even issuing them again from what I understand. So, in actuality, it is the oldest continuously issued design.

Onmillo: Uh, Fulton Armory doesn't have a contract to produce MK14 Mod 0 rifles. Crane Naval Depot and Smith Enterprises do.
Smith is also contracted to produce the Product Improvement M14 program which includes standard battle rifle upgrades and Sniper and Designated Marksman rifles.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right and I stand corrected, (thank you). It's SEI that has ramped up production and Fulton has a civilian copy. SEI is making their CrazyHorse rifles and they are being used in theatre as we sit in the comfort...The CMP recall and reissue is conjecture on the part of many, (including myself), but seems oddly coincidental considering the times we are in. As for Troy and their MCS stock, I live near the Troy facilities, am waiting for my own MCS stock and have followed the system's progress. I happen to know that the stock has been tested extensively by the US Army (Ft. Bragg) and is now in full production.

For those who may not know what a Troy MCS is, it's a modular drop in stock, which actually envelops the M14 action and allows for complete field stripping without tools, (unlike Sage) and also allows user to cowitness all popular optics, (Eotech, PVs-14, lasers, etc) through the use of a BUIS sight system. The unit uses push pins, like an AR to field strip and it can be done without disturbing the optics. The stock literally takes the M-14 and transforms it into a multi-role platform. It is designed to accept all AR15/M16 buttstocks, so it can be used in the Designated Marksman role, or as a more compact weapon platform, (i.e: collapsable stock, grenade launcher). If you want a good look at this stock you can check out This Link or go to EBR SOPMODS and look under the Troy MCS section. This stock, along with prior and continuing innovations from SEI, Sage, VLTOR and others have brought this rifle into the modern age and developed into a true platform - the aged to the ageless.

As for the Springfield Armory SOCOM-16 and SOCOM II - I love mine. I am a realative newcomer to the M1A/M14 platform. I've had my SOCOM-16 for over a year now and it has quickly become my favorite rifle - hands down. If you want a match gun, this isn't for you, but it's more accurate than I am. To say the sights are for "CQB only" and not much good out to, or past 100-yards is sheer nonsense and shows a lack of understanding for the sight and it's purpose. Again, it's not a match sight. It's a sight designed to hit people - period. Before I added my Trijicon Tripower, I was minute of paper plate at 200-yards all day long and hitting the mid-section of a 55-gallon oil drum at 400, (and I stink). With the Trijicon Tripower on board, I can lay accurate fire from 25 feet to 400 yards, (that as far as I've shot it and can barely see anyway) all day...My only regret is that I didn't get into these rifles earlier. Like any mechanical object, there have been users who have experienced problems. Most I've seen have been extractor, magazine, or user related. Good mags are essential and unfortunately, there have been a lot of bogus "USGI" and "USGI Spec" mags floating around. M14 mags were at a premium and fakes made their rounds. Fortunately, CheckMate has been making real-deal new USGI mags for the military for years. They are flawless, reliable, inexpensive and now available to civilians.

The one thing, (of many) I learned about this rifle is that in order for it to be a great rifle it first has to be understood. It's not like an AK, where you can pull it out of the box, snap in a mag and blast away. These rifles need to be set up. Once they are, they are not at all hard to maintain. Many of the failures I've read about have come from users who feel reading owners manuals is a waste of time. The gun is shipped from the factory coated in oil as a rust preventative. The gas system however, must be void of oil. So too the bolt face and chamber. If not, first impressions may not be good.

In my case, I was fairly well-read before I purchased, (thanks to forums much like this one) and prepped my rifle before my first range trip. Other than 2 FTF's dues to a bad gun show mag purchase, and two recent FTE's with some really old smelly Port surplus, this rifle has not missed a beat -(and I'm not at all anal about rifle cleaning). I keep the oprod spring, oprod spring guide, bolt roller and rails greased with Militech. I clean the gas system "whenever", (usually every 500 or so) keep the chamber clean and dry and run a patch of Hoppes down the barrel after a shoot. Other than that, I've done thorough cleanings a few times in the past year. I just finished loading up 12 mags for tomorrow and hauled another 500-rounds up from the basement. As of tomorrow, I'll have over 5500 rounds downtown in 14-months. Not too bad for a "dinosaur"... me and the rifle...

The CMP recall and reissue is conjecture on the part of many, (including myself), but seems oddly coincidental considering the times we are in.

Click to expand...

Not long ago, I ran the numbers and figured there must be fewer than 200K M-14s in inventory, and possibly less, despite 1.4 million produced. They appear to be scrambling to find as many as possible. Ironically, the Taiwanese may have as many as 5 times the number of M-14s in their inventory as we do.

Just to refresh some memories, the whole thread is actually about the M1A not the M14. Granted, it's hard to speak intelligently about the M1A without reconciling it's past as a military rifle.

Click to expand...

Actually, this thread is about the M14 given that the M1A, less but 6 mechanical parts (none of which have been mentioned or are relevant to this discussion) and a bit of machining, is the M14 in civilian dress.

All the "MBR's" arent, at least in any major army around the world I'm aware of.

Click to expand...

The FN FAL was for quite some time for quite a few countries. It is still the Venezuelan MBR in spite of Chavez trying to replace it with the AK-103.

As for the term MBR, some folks think if the bullet isn't about .30 cal it isn't an MBR. To be fair, the M16A2 is referred to as a service rifle, at least in the Corps.

This is one statement I don't get. If I'm not mistaken, the M-14 has been continuously issued in one form or another since it was originally built.

Click to expand...

It hasnt been "the" issue rifle since the 60's and other than a few instances, has been held as a reserve since the M16 was adopted. Last I checked, the M16 in one form or another has been the issue rifle of US and other forces since.

To say the sights are for "CQB only" and not much good out to, or past 100-yards is sheer nonsense and shows a lack of understanding for the sight and it's purpose. Again, it's not a match sight. It's a sight designed to hit people - period. Before I added my Trijicon Tripower, I was minute of paper plate at 200-yards all day long and hitting the mid-section of a 55-gallon oil drum at 400, (and I stink).

Click to expand...

I understand the sight and its purpose, and still stand by my comment. The sights that come with the SOCOM are meant for close range shooting. They are not the standard M1A type iron sights. (they can be replaced with the standard type using the Scout height front sight if they bother you) The rear is a standard peep drilled out to a ghost ring, and the front sight post is very big(read that as FAT) with a tritium stripe insert, and will completely obscure an IPSC silhouette target at 100 yards. Trying to shoot at bullseye targets for precision is tedious at best and the bull looks like a pin point on top of the very wide post, and not even close to a sight picture with normal M14 type sights. If you can consistently hold the same sight picture and hit an 8" pie plate at 200 yards with them, more power to you, I know I cant. Even with a 4MOA Aimpoint that would be a chore. With my Scout scope on the rifle, no biggie. Personally, I still like the Aimpoint on it the best.

At 100 yards, using an Aimpoint on each and fired from a cross legged sitting position, my SOCOM and my 14" barreled AK are about the same accuracy wise. You tell me which rifle shot which target.