Flaws with the M-14/M-1A

[natedog]

We here all the time about the flaws of the M-16, Ak-47, etc, but rarely do we here about the M-14. I doubt it could be perfect. Could somebody list the flaws of the M-14/M-1A type rifles? Thank you.

 

[Tamara]

For starters, the external reciprocating op-rod has to be one of the biggest annoyances in the world of firearms, and I say this as a happy Garand owner.

 

[Black Snowman]

Weight? Can be a blessing and a curse I guess. It's the most common thing I see complaints about. Don't have one myself. . . yet

 

[4v50 Gary]

1) Operating tip:

Don't reach over the receiver with your left hand to operate the operating rod. You can dislodge it from the receiver. Better to use the right hand as the right tends to pull it down and keep it within the rails.

2) Ammo sensitive

Stick w/mil-surp or something close to mil-surp. Not really an issue though and if you handload, keep it within mil-surp specs (velocity & pressure).

3) Versatility

Not much compared to the AR-15. By swapping uppers, you can make the AR a carbine, a sub-gun (with mag adapter), a medium range sniper rifle. Can't say the same for the M-14.

4) Service

Any Tom/Dick/Harriet can service the AR and it won't cost you a king's ransom for the tools. The M-14 is a different story.

5) Design

Let's get nitty-gritty. Plenty of moving parts on the M-14. We're talking gas piston, op-rod, bolt. All those moving parts affect the barrel's harmonic and the more they move, the less consistent the barrel harmonics and the greater the inconsistency in group size. In addition, handguard needs to be stabilized as the gas cylinder unit unitized for more consistent harmonics. The gun needs to be bedded and you really shouldn't take it apart for cleaning. It can be a high maintenance prima-donna.

The AR is simpler. Gas impingment action. No op rod to move. Just a bolt & buffer. Handguard is easily free-floated to reduce its affect on the barrel harmonics. Nothing to glass bed either. Betcha money the AR system (like the SR-25) will easily beat the M-14 in a prolonged shooting contest. The AR design is more maintenance free.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Another comment on the stock - any rifle that uses a reciever that contacts the stock at multiple points is going to be less accurate than a unitized reciever design, such as the AR-15. Bedding the action is, while certainly better than nothing, at best a partial solution.

Cast recievers stretch under long-term use. Since the bolt locks into the reciever rather than the barrel, this will eventually cause headspace troubles.

No pistol grip.

Safety that is, at best, unsafe to use.

Bolt handle on the wrong side.

- Chris

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Safety that is, at best, unsafe to use.

I'm going to have to call BS on that, considering the finger is in the triggerguard to put it in the "off" position, which is time to shoot anyway.



also, the bolt hande is a pretty decent location for righties, as they don't have to reach over the rifle to actuate it.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

While not 'zactly a flaw, a characteristic of the M14, at least when I shoot one, is it will beat you to death on full auto. With true assault weapons like the M16 and AK-47 using intermediate sized cartridges, it is far easier to keep the gun on target in the full-auto mode.

The M14 seems to be the result of trying to combine the capabilities of the M1 (battle rifle) and the BAR (squad automatic weapon) into a single weapon while totally ignoring the benefits of the Sturmgewehr (assault weapon) and the MG42 machinegun introduced by Germany during WWII.

 

[zxc]

Cost, wt, mags-all I can overlook. As a tool, nothing special. Flaws? seems
wierd capable of FA but requires keys?

 

[Chris Rhines]

Righties should be using the left hand to operate the bolt handle, so they can maintain firing control over the rifle with their strong hand. True, it is tough to hold an M14 up with one hand, but that's true of most .308 semis. And the M14 is the lightest full-size .308 semi out there (that I know of.)

Any safety that requires the finger to go inside the trigger guard is not safe. Ready to shoot or no, there's way too much chance for an unintended discharge with the M14 and Garand system. It would be an easy fix, too.

- Chris

 

[444]

Too long for close quarters battle.
Heavy.
Ammo is bulky and heavy.
Military ball ammo is a poor performer. You get no expansion, no fragmentation, no tumbling. Just a .308" hole drilled through. This of course isn't a bad thing, but not great either.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Chris: I don't understand why you think it's not safe. the weapon can be cleared with it on, the finger doesn't go into the triggerguard untill ready to fire (like every other rifle) and there is no occasion where a person needs to put his finger in the triggerguard other than when they are ready to shoot.

 

[dave3006]

The price - major flaw. I saw one for $1400 today. I could buy 3 CMP Garands for that.

Quality - SA produces alot of lemons. Chances are your rifle will need to go back to the factory at least once.

 

[Daniel Watters]

Most of the legend of the M14 seems to be based on National Match, M21, and other custom-tuned examples. Ironically, during its brief production run, the rack-grade M14 was considered to be inferior to the earlier M1 Garand in both design and workmanship. In March of 1962, Aberdeen's Development and Proof Services released "Report on Tests for Ad Hoc Committee on Accuracy and Testing of 7.62mm Ammunition and M14 Rifles". For the testing, twenty-one M14 rifles had been chosen at random from rifles already accepted for military issue. Three manufacturers (Springfield, Winchester, and H&R) were represented by seven new rifles apiece.

• All of the rifles from Winchester and H&R exhibited excessive headspace.
• All of the rifles had loose handguards.
• 95% of the rifles had loose stock bands.
• 90% of the rifles had loose gas cylinders.
• 75% of the rifles had misaligned op rods and gas pistons.
• 50% of the rifles had loose op rod guides.
• 50% of the rifles had op rods which rubbed the stock.
• Three rifles had barrels which exceeded the maximum bore dimensions.
• Only three rifles had an average bore diameter which fell below the accepted mean diameter.
• One rifle was found to have a broken safety while another had a misassembled safety spring.
• One rifle had a misassembled flash suppressor which was actually contacting bullets during live fire tests.

A barrel from each manufacturer was sectioned for examination of the bore and chrome lining. The chrome lining was out of tolerance (uneven and on average too thin) in all three barrels. The H&R barrel also failed the surface-finish requirements.

During accuracy testing, the M14 rifles produced greater group dispersion and variation in the center of impact than the control rifles (two M1 Garands rechambered for 7.62x51mm along with two AR10). NATO testing was quoted indicating that the Canadian C1 (FN FAL) and German G3 were also less sensitive to variations within and among ammo lots.

Shutting off the gas port in the M14 rifles resulted in an average 20% reduction in extreme spread compared to those groups fired with the gas port open. This also reduced the variation in the center of impact.

 

[Kaylee]

What's the nature of the question? Flaws with the mechanical design of the M14, flaws with the appropriateness of the M14 for any given mission, or flaws with any given manufacturer's rendition of the design?

Very different questions. Personally, I think the latter two points are moot. Thus I'll not address the weapon/ammo weight issues or the "XX manufacture sucks" issues.

Cost is a function of it being a holdover from a machinine-heavy 1930's design, no longer produced in the same numbers as the AR, so without the same support (esp. gov't contract support) to manufacture. Also comparing a new M1A in price to an M1 surplused years ago I don't think is a fair comparison. Mag price issues solely a function of stupid laws and proscribed manufacture/limited original manufacture. Again, not fundamental design issues, except inasmuch as that receiver required way more work than other rifles of its day and was as such uneconomical to produce for comparable results.


As to the design itself... the more I deal with it, the more I dislike the op-rod-in-an-outside-track idea. It works, sure... except when you accidentally dissassemble it by pulling the charging handle the wrong way at the wrong time. That's a fundamental problem.

Also, I think I'll commit the unpardonable sin here and say I think the rear sight assembly is overdone for use on a combat rifle. In my not-so-expert opinion, windage should be set-and-forget, and I HATE the way that little tongue sticks up when the range is set way high, and loses most of its bearing surface on the rear sight spring cover thingie.I know the M1/M14 series has a reputation as "the best battle rifle sights known to man".... but I don't like 'em.

Putting the front sight on the flash suppressor. Flash suppressor gets a little wiggly in the field, who has a set of castle nut pliers on 'em? Yech.

Above noted bedding issues.

klugey optic mounting solutions.. though they've gotten pretty good lately.


All that said, it's about the purtiest general-purpose semi .308 out there. I wouldn't equip an army with it, but I sure like it.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

I HATE the way that little tongue sticks up when the range is set way high

I like that, as it reminds me that i have my sights set way high. IMHO, adjustable battle rifle sights should have some kind of feature that says "LOOK AT ME! I'M SET TOO HIGH!", since i've had problems in the past with adjustable sights being set on the wrong setting. (like the last time i shot the walking/running man.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Too long for close quarters battle.

The M14 is, I believe, 4" longer than an M16. I don't that would matter a great deal when clearing a bunker or a trench.

I know, I know, if it has a barrel longer than 16" it's completely useless for targets inside 100 yards....or so people think sometimes, it seems.

 

[444]

The one big complaint in everything I have read from the current war in Iraq is that they need shorter weapons for CQB. They feel that the standard M16 is too long. The M14 is 6" longer than an M16 with a 20" barrel. The M4 obviously would be at least 11" shorter than an M14 even with the stock fully extended.

 

[Nightcrawler]

You sure? An M16 is 40". An M14 is 44", I believe, with it's 22" barrel. At least, that's the length of a Springfield Armory M1A, according to their website.

But the fact that it might be poorly suited to....what? Use inside of a small hallway? Isn't really a design flaw. After all, on the other hand, a 10" Colt Commando makes a very poor long ranged battle rifle. It's a trade off. I don't think it's an inherent flaw of the design. And, if you really want to, you can get an M14 rifle chopped down to be quite a mean little shorty carbine, complete with all of the rails and whatnot for hanging your doo-dads off of.

Due to the nature of this Iraq war, and the large numbers of civilians involved, there was an inordinate amount of house-clearing. However, if there aren't so many civilians around, it's probably easier and safer to simply blow a house up than to send guys in to clear it out.

 

[VG]

Congressional Medal of Honor Citations for actions in Mogadishu, Somalia

*GORDON, GARY I.

Rank and organization: Master Sergeant, U.S. Army. Place and date: 3 October 1993, Mogadishu, Somalia. Entered service at: ----- Born: Lincoln, Maine. Citation: Master Sergeant Gordon, United States Army, distinguished himself by actions above and beyond the call of duty on 3 October 1993, while serving as Sniper Team Leader, United States Army Special Operations Command with Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu, Somalia. Master Sergeant Gordon's sniper team provided precision fires from the lead helicopter during an assault and at two helicopter crash sites, while subjected to intense automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade fires. When Master Sergeant Gordon learned that ground forces were not immediately available to secure the second crash site, he and another sniper unhesitatingly volunteered to be inserted to protect the four critically wounded personnel, despite being well aware of the growing number of enemy personnel closing in on the site. After his third request to be inserted, Master Sergeant Gordon received permission to perform his volunteer mission. When debris and enemy ground fires at the site caused them to abort the first attempt, Master Sergeant Gordon was inserted one hundred meters south of the crash site. Equipped with only his sniper rifle and a pistol, Master Sergeant Gordon and his fellow sniper, while under intense small arms fire from the enemy, fought their way through a dense maze of shanties and shacks to reach the critically injured crew members. Master Sergeant Gordon immediately pulled the pilot and the other crew members from the aircraft, establishing a perimeter which placed him and his fellow sniper in the most vulnerable position. Master Sergeant Gordon used his long range rifle and side arm to kill an undetermined number of attackers until he depleted his ammunition. Master Sergeant Gordon then went back to the wreckage, recovering some of the crew's weapons and ammunition. Despite the fact that he was critically low on ammunition, he provided some of it to the dazed pilot and then radioed for help. Master Sergeant Gordon continued to travel the perimeter, protecting the downed crew. After his team member was fatally wounded and his own rifle ammunition exhausted, Master Sergeant Gordon returned to the wreckage, recovering a rifle with the last five rounds of ammunition and gave it to the pilot with the words, "good luck." Then, armed only with his pistol, Master Sergeant Gordon continued to fight until he was fatally wounded. His actions saved the pilot's life. Master Sergeant Gordon's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest standards of military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the United States Army.

*SHUGHART, RANDALL D.

Rank and organization: Sergeant First Class, U.S. Army. Place and date: 3 October 1993, Mogadishu, Somalia. Entered service at: ----- Born: Newville, Pennsylvania. Citation: Sergeant First Class Shughart, United States Army, distinguished himself by actions above and beyond the call of duty on 3 October 1993, while serving as a Sniper Team Member, United States Army Special Operations Command with Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu, Somalia. Sergeant First Class Shughart provided precision sniper fires from the lead helicopter during an assault on a building and at two helicopter crash sites, while subjected to intense automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade fires. While providing critical suppressive fires at the second crash site, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader learned that ground forces were not immediately available to secure the site. Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader unhesitatingly volunteered to be inserted to protect the four critically wounded personnel, despite being well aware of the growing number of enemy personnel closing in on the site. After their third request to be inserted, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader received permission to perform this volunteer mission. When debris and enemy ground fires at the site caused them to abort the first attempt, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader were inserted one hundred meters south of the crash site. Equipped with only his sniper rifle and a pistol, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader, while under intense small arms fire from the enemy, fought their way through a dense maze of shanties and shacks to reach the critically injured crew members. Sergeant First Class Shughart pulled the pilot and the other crew members from the aircraft, establishing a perimeter which placed him and his fellow sniper in the most vulnerable position. Sergeant First Class Shughart used his long range rifle and side arm to kill an undetermined number of attackers while traveling the perimeter, protecting the downed crew. Sergeant First Class Shughart continued his protective fire until he depleted his ammunition and was fatally wounded. His actions saved the pilot's life. Sergeant First Class Shughart's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest standards of military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the United States Army.

And their rifle:

 

[444]

You might be right, I was basing the length of an M16 on the Bushmaster catalog, but they probably don't have a flash suppressor on the end of the barrel. So the M4 would only be 9" shorter with the stock fully extended.

"Isn't really a design flaw."
It is if you are the one trying to use it.

Long range rifle shooting in combat is about as common as money in my pocket.
I don't think that blowing up civilian houses would be tolorated any more by the general public. And you can be sure that the lefties in the news media would not only make an issue out of it, they would run the subject into the ground.

VG
They called them snipers for a reason. They were using sniper rifles.

 

[UnknownSailor]

Good point.

Shows how training can compensate for minor quirks in a weapon system.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Well, the Army seems to agree with you. The standard XM8 variant, that is apparently intended to be the standard issue infantry "rifle", has a 12" barrel. I sometimes wonder why they don't just switch to something like the HK53 and have done with it.

 

[444]

In what caliber ?

 

[Abominable No-Man]

I just had to bite on this one.

As a former M1A owner and M1A aficionado (that's a ten-dollar word for "I-like-'em'a'lot"....), here's my two cents:

Weight: Heavy yeah, but really only a factor in the NM or other HB versions.

Safety: BS flag goes up here too. See Andrew Wyatt's explaination.

Ammo sensitivity: Don't know about that one. I used to fire all kinds of stuff in mine with no problems.

Operating rod: I will have to second the opinions on that. It is

waaaay past annoying. And you CAN dislodge it from its track. Sad troof....

Versatility: Not sure what the issue here is. IMO, anything you can do with a 5.56 you can do with a .7.62. Not vice-versa, tho. Okay, you can't switch calibers, that's true, but that's why you have more than one gun. Then again, there's the old saying "Beware the man with only one gun...."

CQB: Point taken. THEN AGAIN.......WWII saw a lot og house-to-house fighting and they had the M1 then.......


Flash suppressor: Likes to wiggle loose, as was previously noted. 20/20 hindsight says it was not a good place to put the front sight. Probably a setup similar to the Mini-14 GB would be better.

Full-auto fire: Never fired one on full-auto, don't know.

Rear sight: I like them, but maybe they
are a bit overengineered. IMO, no worse than the M16A2's.

Bedding issues:............I had a fiberglass stock mated to my receiver and had no problems. Not sure what to tell you there....

Bottom line: the M1A is a Great Rifle. It's not the Perfect Rifle.

ANM

 

[Nightcrawler]

Both the XM8 and HK53 are 5.56mm. I think that 10" or so is exactly half the barrel length you need for a the velocity-dependent 5.56mm round, but if nobody every shooots at anybody more than 100 meters away anymore, and everybody just cuts down the badguys with burstfire anyway, I don't think it'd matter much.