Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Braith-Wafer, Oct 4, 2007.
Just asking here, Which is a superior rifle from these two although they are similar?.
Similar but not the same.
The original BM59 uses a modified M1 Garand receiver with standard M1 bolt assembly.
M14 uses a receiver tailored for the 7.62X51 cartridge and a modified bolt to increase reliablity in full auto fire mode.
Both use excellent box magazine designs with a slight edge going to the Beretta because it is engineered to be slightly more indestructible than an armored car.
Both use different gas systems.
They are comparable rifles overall with an edge in controllability going to the Beretta in full auto fire mode.
The BM-59 has a few more important differences I'd like to mention.
(These rifles were designed for soldiers, not civilians)
Integral rifle grenade launcher with grenade sight.
The grenade launcher/tricompensator is huge. It reduces muzzle flash, launches grenades and because of the weight, improves full-auto control.
Straight in magazines (not tilt and catch like the M14)
It is true that BM59 magazines are much more expensive than M-14 mags, but then, most hi-quality weapons have more expensive magazines.
A magazine is not like a taco, you dont just put it in your mouth and chew.
It is a crucial component of a weapon. The magazine is part of a machine. That means it must be made to the same standards as all of the other parts of the machine.
Using cheap magazines in a BM59 would be like 20$ tires on a Ferrari.
Using cheap magazines in an M14 is the same IMO. Clean GI mags work perfectly. Cheap import and reproduction junk doesn't, even the "GI spec" imports in my experience.
Sounds like you really should be comparing it to the BAR the way you keep mentioning full auto.
For me and my M1A, if I wanted an even heavier rifle, I bet there are other options as well. I am sure the BM59 is a great rifle, but the more obscure rifle always seems to get talked up in these threads.
Nothing obscure about BM59s among the NFA crowd. The tri-comp really works. No experience launching grenades, but BM59s are much more controllable in FA than M14s - or G3s and FALs, for that matter. That said, "controllable" is a relative term when applied to 7.62X51 battle rifles. All are great rifles in semi.
The BAR does not stand the comparsion because of weight.
Huh, those Taiwanese mags seemed to work fine in my Super Match.
I own M14 type rifles as well as a BM 59. They are both outstanding rifles. The Tri-compensator on the BM 59 is fantastic. It really helps tame recoil and muzzle rise, not only on full auto but for rapid semi auto fire as well (my gun is semi auto only unfortunately). The BM 59 is shorter and handier than a standard length M14, but then again you could opt for an M14 in Bush or SOCOM configuration.
Compared to the M14, reloads are a little faster on the BM 59 because inserting magazines is more of a straight in motion. The downside to the BM 59 is of course availability, and cost of magazines which run 75 bucks each. The other downside is mounting optics. I have never seen a BM 59 with a scope mounted on it. I've read claims that Beretta did make one, but I am not certain about this.
Reese Surplus is now out of BM 59s. There are BM 59s out there, but you have to hunt around and often walk away because prices are sometimes outrageous. Unless the rifle comes with a ton of accessories and extra magazines anything over about $1800 for NIB or like new is a rip off in my opinion. Receivers can be found to be marked either Beretta or Springfield on the heel. Springfield bought a ton of parts Beretta had lying around. Some receivers were already stamped with Beretta markings, and some were not stamped at all. Springfield did some final machining in the USA on some of the receivers they imported. The receiver on my rifle is marked Beretta.
Just watch out for the BM 59 clones and fakes out there. There are lots of them chopped together out of U.S. M1 rifles. The quality varies wildly on these conversions, with most being garbage. Hope this helps.
Separate names with a comma.