WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
What kind of accuracy was expected of the average soldier at 500 yards with the M14?
M14 - catching my eye lately
- Thread starter Heir Kommt Die Sonne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- m14 m1a milsurps us military rifles
- Status
What kind of accuracy was expected of the average soldier at 500 yards with the M14?
Garandimal
member
Believe the US military has used 4 MOA for battle rifles since the M1903 Springfield.
GR
AlexanderA
Member
Only Elmer Balance (the man who brought it to market) would know for sure. I think it's simply that the letter "A" resembles the number "4." It's similar to using "Springfield Armory" but with a little "TM" after it. They were trying to make a street-legal clone of the M14.
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,107
Being a left hand shooter when it comes to .308/7.62 rifles my favorite according to feel, easy of use for loading and unloading , accuracy between all mentioned with mil-spec ammo is similar. AR-10 style has best advantage for scoping and adding components. Best iron sights award goes to M1A or Garand
1 M1A or M1 Garand
2 AR-10
3 FAL
4 H&K 91 (not left hand friendly at all because of charging handle)
with mention that a Kalashnikov style rifle is left handed friendly also
1 M1A or M1 Garand
2 AR-10
3 FAL
4 H&K 91 (not left hand friendly at all because of charging handle)
with mention that a Kalashnikov style rifle is left handed friendly also
Megawatt maker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 699
I have 2 M1a's. First one I bought back in the early 90s. It's a Taiwan made with a forged receiver. GI bolt wont fit in it, without machine the receiver. Its OK. It was never very accurate, the Stock fit is beyond horrible, and this effects accuracy to the extreme.
I recently bought a new Springfield loaded. Its MOA right out of the box. I put an adjustable gas plug in, and its sub MOA now.
like others have said, they are heavy, unwieldy, and very hard to get a good cheekrest when scoped. That said, they just WORK. Both of them do.
I also have a Bushmaster BR-308. While it lighter and handier, I've been having various issues with FTF and FTE. It works about 95% of the time, and I'm working on it to get the last 5%. Adjustable gas block on order for it.
but given the choice, I'd still grab the M1a. Its issues are far outweighed by its accuracy, and its 100% reliability.
The BR-308 looks like, handle like, feels like...hell...IS a toy. The M1A is a real rifle!
just my 2 cents.
I recently bought a new Springfield loaded. Its MOA right out of the box. I put an adjustable gas plug in, and its sub MOA now.
like others have said, they are heavy, unwieldy, and very hard to get a good cheekrest when scoped. That said, they just WORK. Both of them do.
I also have a Bushmaster BR-308. While it lighter and handier, I've been having various issues with FTF and FTE. It works about 95% of the time, and I'm working on it to get the last 5%. Adjustable gas block on order for it.
but given the choice, I'd still grab the M1a. Its issues are far outweighed by its accuracy, and its 100% reliability.
The BR-308 looks like, handle like, feels like...hell...IS a toy. The M1A is a real rifle!
just my 2 cents.
Garandimal
member
Alpha marks following numerical designations is pretty standard as well.
eg.
1911-A1
And the selective fire version of the standard M14 was designated the M14A1.
So an improved Springfield Armory M1 rifle, designated M1A, makes sense.
GR
AlexanderA
Member
All M14's are selective fire. It's just that most of them have the selector lock instead of the selector switch installed.
The M14A1 was the "squad automatic" version. By all accounts, it was a failure. However, the muzzle compensator of that version, which slips over the standard flash hider, is useful in minimizing muzzle rise in rapid semiautomatic fire. Downside is you can't attach a bayonet while the muzzle compensator is in place. (The compensator must be locked in place on the bayonet lug, using the combination tool.)
Officers'Wife
Member
OK, this will probably make me a heretic but I've used my Dad's M1A and my Grandfather's Garand. I can't think of a benefit of the former in any use I would have to a 30 caliber and the latter is chambered for 30-06 which in my view is a superior cartridge to the .308.
I didn't know Taiwan made M14s were once imported, they are made on US M14 machinery when M14 was decommissioned in US, the tooling were sold to Taiwan. I have a few Taiwan made M14 mags, well made. My Chinese Norinco M14 has a TRW bolt, runs great.
Megawatt maker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 699
The one I have has no markings on the heal. The serial number is stamped low on the receiver, so low, you have to remove it from the stock to see it. The China made polytechs and Norincos both have the number stamped on the heel. I have a book around here somewhere that ID'ed it for me. It claims a handful were brought over before GHW Bush banned the imports in late 89. I could be wrong, but in all my years of on and off researching, it's the only explanation that fits...so far anyway. unless someone else knows something more. I am curious. I do know a GI bolt doesnt work in it. I bought one years back for cheap at a gun show just to see if GI parts would fit on it. Most do. I had a Radar Trigger group in it..it fit. GI gas group fits. Flashhiders fit. Only thing that doesnt, so far, is the bolt.
CapnMac
Member
Well, CMP is temporarily out of SGs in the $700-800 range (until they get enough out of the recent Philippine acquisition to stock both the Stores up again). If you can drive to either of the brick-and-mortar CMP Stores, they have a few out in the racks, but not enough to warrant listing under mail order.
I've seen some decidedly sketchy Garands at shows with price tags up around $1800-2100, and had all the looks of being Blue Sky or similar imports.
It took 13 years to develop the M-14, so, when they started, the idea of a semi-fixed magazine fed with 5 round strippers had not yet been eclipsed. (Army was still issuing Carbine ammo on stripper clips with a magazine adapter; they still had concerns about soldiers "wasting ammo.")
By the time the M14 was officially adopted in 1958, the use of clips to load magazines was not doctrine, but was retained anyway. Ammunition bandoliers were packed in 5 round increments. The M56 LBE used "Universal" ammo pouches as the M-14 wan not adopted at that point. The Pouches were able to carry a full bandolier of either Garand en bloc clips, a bandolier of the 7.62nato in clips, two BAR mags, or four Carbine mags per each. When the M-14 was adopted, the pouch would only hold two magazines. There was a later improvement o nthe 56 gear which had magazine pouches which could hold three M-14 mags. Those entered circulation about 1965, with the M-14 being withdrawn.
Army issue of the M-14 was on a Regiment by Regiment basis, which took some time. Army did not go fully over to M-14 until about 1962. Marines developed a specific rifle and pouch for the M-14 that was issues in 1961. The P-61 had a belt wit ha series of glove snaps all the way around. The magazine pouches held a single mag each, with two snaps vertically on the back in a full-width loop. The pouches were issued four to a rifleman. They were meant to be installed to preference, so they could open up or down, on the top or bottom snap, whichever better fit one's flak jacket
Which later became the M14E3, with it's pistol grip stock and extra-flimsy front grip and bipod, later to be officially designated as the M15. For a single day, then removed from service, ne'er to be seen again.
Which is why the next rifle adopted was the M-16.
kBob
Member
of course the really good and useful select fire model was the M14 E2... improved stock, muzzle comp, improved bipod, lengthened sling.
I liked it better than the BAR.
-kBob
I liked it better than the BAR.
-kBob
Swampman
Old Fart
I'm unaware of a specific M14 rifle developed for the USMC, could you please elaborate?
CapnMac
Member
Sorry for any confusion--same rifle, different web gear.
Garandimal
member
Garandimal
member
kBob
Member
There were BTW M 14 E2 (Which came way later than the M15 BTW) in Regular army units as late as 1973.
If you think the bipod on the M14A1 and E2 was flimsy, then you have never used one. Perhaps folks are confusing it with the M16A1's clothes pin design and that was not it. You might note that when the USMC was trying to upgrade the M60 GPMG they trashed its bipod and went with the bipod for the M14.
When I arrived at a Regular Army Infantry outfit in September of 1973 in Europe there were E2s in our arms room. Earlier that summer I fired the BAR, and M14 A1, and a M14 E2 all in one day at Ft. Polk. The BARs were with a National Guard unit armed with M1 rifles and 1919 A4 machine guns and the two different M14s were in Army Reserve units. I would chose the E2 over the BAR or in a squad role even the BREN based on my actual shooting experience, not what I read in a book or someone told me. I did use the E2 to 300 meters on Full Auto and did use it to 700 semi from the bipod.
During the time I was assigned to a light Infantry squad as an Automatic Rifleman I would have MUCH preferred an E2 to an M16A1 with or without the crappy clothespin bipod. And yes I had to carry every thing I would have via "Leather Personnel Carriers"
Something more like a BAR belt would have been nice instead of those two, two mag pouches for sure.
The M15 was a heavy barrel and heavy stock model that was being played with at the time of the adoption of the basic M14 rifle.
Three of four M-14s had selector lock outs on them replacing the actual selector "lever" and locking the disconector arm forward. Generally only those rifles assigned to a fireteam Automatic Rifleman had a selector and those were then equipped with a Bipod and that was the only difference between the "M14A1" and a basic M14. The M14A1 was just a standard M14 rifle with the selector installed and a bipod and they were not marked M14A1 on the reciever.
The E2 was also a standard M14 rifle with a selector switch and I never saw one actually marked M14 E2 and believe it was just a designator. Those standard barrel M14 E2 did have a clamp on "Bullet Stabilizer" that attached over the flash hider to the bayonet stud so one could not fix bayonets on an E2. The Bipod was modified by having a sling swivel installed on it but was other wise the same as used on the "A1" and like the A1 was clamped over the barrel and gas system and pinched not by a spring but by a bolt tightened to lock the bipod on with the M14 Combination tool's hex head wrench that was used to tighten or untighten the gas systems screw with. The stock had a folding fore grip that when extended locked into place via a steel pin and was strong enough to use as a step with the rifle leaned up against a wall (not flimsy at all) and this had a sling loop on it as well. A special sling with additional hardware was used to allow the Auto Rifleman to sling into either the bipod or the forward grip or both to assist in controlling the rifle in full auto fire. There was also a flip up shoulder rest on the butt.
I guess everyone is free to their opinions, but mine is that the E2 was a pretty good magazine fed SAW. Sure a belt fed would be cool and is now possible, but in 1967 was not available and the E2 was.
-kBob
If you think the bipod on the M14A1 and E2 was flimsy, then you have never used one. Perhaps folks are confusing it with the M16A1's clothes pin design and that was not it. You might note that when the USMC was trying to upgrade the M60 GPMG they trashed its bipod and went with the bipod for the M14.
When I arrived at a Regular Army Infantry outfit in September of 1973 in Europe there were E2s in our arms room. Earlier that summer I fired the BAR, and M14 A1, and a M14 E2 all in one day at Ft. Polk. The BARs were with a National Guard unit armed with M1 rifles and 1919 A4 machine guns and the two different M14s were in Army Reserve units. I would chose the E2 over the BAR or in a squad role even the BREN based on my actual shooting experience, not what I read in a book or someone told me. I did use the E2 to 300 meters on Full Auto and did use it to 700 semi from the bipod.
During the time I was assigned to a light Infantry squad as an Automatic Rifleman I would have MUCH preferred an E2 to an M16A1 with or without the crappy clothespin bipod. And yes I had to carry every thing I would have via "Leather Personnel Carriers"
Something more like a BAR belt would have been nice instead of those two, two mag pouches for sure.
The M15 was a heavy barrel and heavy stock model that was being played with at the time of the adoption of the basic M14 rifle.
Three of four M-14s had selector lock outs on them replacing the actual selector "lever" and locking the disconector arm forward. Generally only those rifles assigned to a fireteam Automatic Rifleman had a selector and those were then equipped with a Bipod and that was the only difference between the "M14A1" and a basic M14. The M14A1 was just a standard M14 rifle with the selector installed and a bipod and they were not marked M14A1 on the reciever.
The E2 was also a standard M14 rifle with a selector switch and I never saw one actually marked M14 E2 and believe it was just a designator. Those standard barrel M14 E2 did have a clamp on "Bullet Stabilizer" that attached over the flash hider to the bayonet stud so one could not fix bayonets on an E2. The Bipod was modified by having a sling swivel installed on it but was other wise the same as used on the "A1" and like the A1 was clamped over the barrel and gas system and pinched not by a spring but by a bolt tightened to lock the bipod on with the M14 Combination tool's hex head wrench that was used to tighten or untighten the gas systems screw with. The stock had a folding fore grip that when extended locked into place via a steel pin and was strong enough to use as a step with the rifle leaned up against a wall (not flimsy at all) and this had a sling loop on it as well. A special sling with additional hardware was used to allow the Auto Rifleman to sling into either the bipod or the forward grip or both to assist in controlling the rifle in full auto fire. There was also a flip up shoulder rest on the butt.
I guess everyone is free to their opinions, but mine is that the E2 was a pretty good magazine fed SAW. Sure a belt fed would be cool and is now possible, but in 1967 was not available and the E2 was.
-kBob
Rifleman 173
Member
If you couple a M-21 with match grade ammo, a good scope and a good, well-taught shooter that whole system becomes a thing of extreme accuracy for shooting at long and close range needs. In the photo to the left of this post is me and the XM-21 sniper rifle that I used in Viet Nam. I used that rifle to drop the feral pig while we were out on patrol one day. It fed us well. The rifle is positioned next to my neck so that we could get it into the photo. On my right side, just behind the rifle, is the case I used to carry my 3 by 9 variable Redfield scope. The scope had ART system cam in it (ART = Automatic Range Tracking) which mimics the ballistic arc of the match ammo I was shooting in those days. To qualify with that rifle I had to make so many hits on a steel silhouette target at 900 meters or I would have washed out of the sniper school course.
The M-14, M-1A and M-21 family of rifles have so many good things going for them that I'm amazed that they haven't gotten a bigger following than they presently have. Their bullets have great penetration when needed. They take down most bad guys with one good center mass hit. They can be used to hunt anything on the North American continent except for the bigger bears. They're not the heaviest guns out there but they're not the lightest ones either. On a hot and humid day these rifles do tend to become tiresome to lug around but in the middle of open combat they're a great comfort to have ready to use. Once you go through actual bad times or combat with one, these rifles will make a true believer of M-14 style rifles out of you. Given a choice between a good M-14 or a good AR style rifle, I would always opt for the M-14 every time.
The M-14, M-1A and M-21 family of rifles have so many good things going for them that I'm amazed that they haven't gotten a bigger following than they presently have. Their bullets have great penetration when needed. They take down most bad guys with one good center mass hit. They can be used to hunt anything on the North American continent except for the bigger bears. They're not the heaviest guns out there but they're not the lightest ones either. On a hot and humid day these rifles do tend to become tiresome to lug around but in the middle of open combat they're a great comfort to have ready to use. Once you go through actual bad times or combat with one, these rifles will make a true believer of M-14 style rifles out of you. Given a choice between a good M-14 or a good AR style rifle, I would always opt for the M-14 every time.
22250Rem
Member
........Me too, and also in 1969. Still got the "Rifle Marksmanship And Data Book" . Glad I saved it....
.... At 500 meters, ( about 523 or so yards), Here's the best group I have a record of; 44 points out of a possible 50. With 23 clicks of elevation to zero that .308 at that distance, ( and 1 click right windage ) they would lay 'em in there pretty good if I did my part, ( I admit that 500 meter bullseye was pretty big), but it was quite an iron sighted thrill for a 19 year old kid who'd never shot past 100 yds. before.
.. It was my first formal marksmanship training so I'll always have a soft spot for all things M-14, M-1A, and of course M-1, which the M-14 is a descendant of. Might be why I wound up with one of each and did lots of NRA High Power matches with both of 'em back in the 1990's- early 2000's.
. .AlexanderA
Member
I have an M2 bipod on my "Devine" M1A. It is excellent. The only drawback is that you have to use a standard (slim) stock so that the bipod can fold. I also have a beefed up match stock but I can't use it with the bipod.
Swampman
Old Fart
Excellent write-up, but I don't think your claim that "The 168 grain M852 match round was developed and issued for use with the M21" is correct.
M852 was developed, then issued in 1981 as a match cartridge for use in the "Rifle, 7.62 mm, M14, NATIONAL MATCH. The cartridge is intended and specifically prepared for use in those weapons designated as competitive rifles and also for marksmanship training. The cartridge is not for combat use."
From: ARMY AMMUNITION DATA SHEETS
SMALL CALIBER AMMUNITION FSC 1305
APRIL, 1994
Boxes of M852 were labeled "NOT FOR COMBAT USE" and the cases were knurled above the head for identification purposes.
Around 1990 JAG decided that Sierra HPBT bullets were OK for combat use and they may have been legally used as sniper rounds after that, but so far as I'm aware they didn't change the packaging or case knurling requirements.
https://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2108
I saw soldiers carrying the EBR M14's back in 2009 Mosul, while I was there with KBR. They looked heavy!!!
This last deer season I used my M1A for the 1st half of opening day. I'm getting old and out of shape and don't hunt from a tree stand. Found I myself huffing and puffing after climbing a couple hills with my M1A. Realized there was no way I could snap an accurate shot off quickly.
2nd part of the day, I brought out my 16 inch AR15 and used it to kill a Doe at 125yds, shooting from the prone.
This last deer season I used my M1A for the 1st half of opening day. I'm getting old and out of shape and don't hunt from a tree stand. Found I myself huffing and puffing after climbing a couple hills with my M1A. Realized there was no way I could snap an accurate shot off quickly.
2nd part of the day, I brought out my 16 inch AR15 and used it to kill a Doe at 125yds, shooting from the prone.
- Status
