M1a inconsistent/bloody mess/take 2
- Thread starter Megawatt maker
- Start date
trackskippy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 3,508
Unless you have an actual M14 or M16, etc, everything else is a clone.
And as with any of the "issue" rifles, I think it all depends on what you happen to get. And if you got one that would shoot, Id say, consider yourself lucky.
They were all built to a specific spec with specific spec ammo, and other than match, or other special purpose built guns, I dont think youre really going to see anything special.
Ive shot USMC MTU M14's and Ive shot match tuned M1A's, and didnt see a whole lot of difference in them, in my hands anyway.
I had a SA NM M1A, and it shot well, but other than some load development, it was rarely ever shot off a bench or rest, and I was shooting iron sights, so I guess it all depends on what youre calling "accurate". Bench and/or rest type accuracy and field position accuracy tend to be different things.
I do think comparing the basic, "issue" M14's/M1A's, and M1's, to the AR's and M16's, etc, that the AR type rifles are the more accurate rifles right from git go, and that doesnt change going forward.
And as with any of the "issue" rifles, I think it all depends on what you happen to get. And if you got one that would shoot, Id say, consider yourself lucky.
They were all built to a specific spec with specific spec ammo, and other than match, or other special purpose built guns, I dont think youre really going to see anything special.
Ive shot USMC MTU M14's and Ive shot match tuned M1A's, and didnt see a whole lot of difference in them, in my hands anyway.
I had a SA NM M1A, and it shot well, but other than some load development, it was rarely ever shot off a bench or rest, and I was shooting iron sights, so I guess it all depends on what youre calling "accurate". Bench and/or rest type accuracy and field position accuracy tend to be different things.
I do think comparing the basic, "issue" M14's/M1A's, and M1's, to the AR's and M16's, etc, that the AR type rifles are the more accurate rifles right from git go, and that doesnt change going forward.
Ignition Override
Member
Bought my M1A in walnut, two months ago, for its character.
Likewise the PTR-91 and FAL .
Likewise the PTR-91 and FAL .
Last edited:
Megawatt maker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 699
I get that. It most definitely is a very old school look, that I now miss, but when I paid 1700 for the rifle, plus another 150 for a scope mount, another grand for the scope, plus cheek riser, bi pod...etc...over 3 grand all together...form needs to follow function, unfortunately.
nettlle
Contributing Member
I have a walnut stocked M1A. It shoots just fine. Saying a wood stocked rifle is inherently inaccurate hasn't been my experience with wood stocks. This pertains my M1A or my many other wood stocked rifles. Some are decades old.
S.Crockett
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2022
- Messages
- 327
Problem .308 M1As are why non-problematic .308 ARs are a thing. And that’s before you get to the .308 AR’s better ergos, modularity, and ease of running optics.
Sure, a reliable M1A with the factory irons can be a solid, fun high-power range rifle, but it’s 2023, not 1979. The M1A, like the M14, is a near-obsolete platform outside of Camp Perry-type Vintage Matches.
Sure, a reliable M1A with the factory irons can be a solid, fun high-power range rifle, but it’s 2023, not 1979. The M1A, like the M14, is a near-obsolete platform outside of Camp Perry-type Vintage Matches.
Megawatt maker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 699
I have some great shooting wood stock rifles. My point isn't really against wood stocks. My point is...the wood stock on THIS rifle simply didn't cut it. The difference is night and day. It ONCE shot very well with that stock, now it clearly doesn't.
The reason for this...SA didn't seal it very well, and YES, maybe I should have applied a few layers of BLO right after I bought it. Lesson learned.
However, Im thinking this was a blessing is disguise...because I'm enjoying the much more Ergonomic chassis so much better, plus, it made it even more accurate..so far anyway. I never would have even considered buying a chassis for it had this not happened. It just lines right up with the eye so much better now, it's lighter, more handy...just feels so much better. I'm really liking it.
Now, back to wood stocks. Most of my wood stocks are laminate. They are just as attractive as solid wood, and are not subject to the same possibilities of warping, don't ever shift with temp change...etc.
I'm wondering if anyone makes, or has made, a laminate stock for the M1A?
nettlle
Contributing Member
All of my wood stocks are walnut. Including my M1A.
Megawatt maker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 699
That's good. I assume they are properly sealed.
Mine was not. It warped. That's it. Not saying wood stocks are good, bad, or the other thing. I'm just reporting a problem I had with mine, and that I found a solution. A solution, in my personal opinion, that resulted in a superior shooting rifle over what it ever was...at least so far.
I'll note also...my stock problem is not unique to me, as it's well documented the military had more than a few problems with the wood stocks on M14s, particularly in Vietnam.
That's not an argument on my part, just a simple, verified historic fact. Furthermore, the military, would not had invested millions to produce hundreds of thousands of synthetic and fiberglass stocks, had they been completely satisfied with the performance of said woods stocks, on said M14s. Again, facts.
So...if you are happy with your woods stocks...bravo! Congrats! Happy shooting!
Ignition Override
Member
Megawatt Maker.
That makes’ sense, to meet a personal requirement for accuracy.
But so much extra expense.
I’m 67 but have never owned a scope.
Am a Lefty and luckily the vision in my left eye is just enough to get loose groups at 50 yards.
But if I die tomorrow, no “gun regrets”.
Maybe it’s a bit of a Zen “thing”,… simply shooting them, enjoying the feel/looks of basic NATO and US “Battle” rifles, mostly blasting Halves, Thirds of clay pigeons st 50 yards.
That makes’ sense, to meet a personal requirement for accuracy.
But so much extra expense.
I’m 67 but have never owned a scope.
Am a Lefty and luckily the vision in my left eye is just enough to get loose groups at 50 yards.
But if I die tomorrow, no “gun regrets”.
Maybe it’s a bit of a Zen “thing”,… simply shooting them, enjoying the feel/looks of basic NATO and US “Battle” rifles, mostly blasting Halves, Thirds of clay pigeons st 50 yards.
Last edited:
Gordon
Member
My early M14 was made into a Smith Enterprise Match one in the mid 1980s , the wood stock is extensively fiberglassed and fitted very tight-originally. I shot it in competitions for 20 years and after about 15 years started to "loosen up " to a very reliable combat gun . It was still just over a MOA gun with a Sadlac mount and a 6x scope . I too put mine to sleep , all nicely oiled with 20+ good magazines in the back of the safe around 2010 and it is currently mounted with a "Souped up" Israelian surplus ANPVS2 with a Good IR booster light mounted on a front small lower PIC rail that is between the opened Military Bipod . All sighted in and ready to go with batteries standing by, those are 30 round GI mags ! Rare from Israel.the IR device not shown here it is not huge and clicks on the forward pic rail. I also replace hand guard with a Springfield scout one not shown when picture was taken in 2011 , I laced on a leather cheek riser too since then and have a nice leather sling to move the combo 
:
:
The original M14 was too light to make any sort of a decent target rifle, or for that matter, fully automatic rifle. The user came out of WW2 lugging 10 lb M1 Garands and 5.2 lb M1 carbines and wanted a 30-06 powered rifle that weighed as much as a M1 carbine. And wanted it controllable in full automatic fire!
Original M14 receivers have thinner sidewalls than Springfield M1a receivers. Which is a good thing for the M1a receivers. I have handled milled aftermarket receivers that copied the GI dimensions, and came to the conclusion, mil spec ain't next to Godliness.
Neither is the fact the military M14 was not designed to be a target rifle. This is @Hummer70 opinion on the things:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5424409
Your test vehicle is likely to give different results because a bolt gun is a totally different animal than a gas gun. IF your rifle is set up right both lugs are contacting equally and the barrel may be contacting front of receiver 360° around and your bolt face may be square.
The M14 in issue condition is known as the worst performing rifle we ever fielded. I worked product engineering for the Army Small Cal Lab at Picatinny Arsenal and I had engineering responsibility for the M14 until the Chief transferred me to the Dover Devil MG project. While there my board was adjacent to Julio Savioli who was the draftsman for the M14 rifle and his name is on all the drawings for it. Al Cole was engineer in charge of the M14 and he was also a friend. Savy (as we called him) was a wealth of information on the M14 and had all kinds of stories about it as he not only did the drawings, he was in on the field testing.
First off consider the requirement facts from the engineering files from the government weapons production efforts.
1. acceptance accuracy for 1903 Springfield was 3" at 100 yards.
2. acceptance accuracy for M1 Garand was 5" at 100 yards.
3. acceptance accuracy for M14 was 5.5" at 100 yards and was waivered continually as it could not meet that.
4. acceptance accuracy for M16 series is 4.5" at 100 yards.
From SAAMI we have a recommendation of 3" at 100 yards and it is up to the vendor whether he wants to meet this or not.
H&R also made M14s and M1s and the contracts were shut down due to poor QA.
The M14 if rebuilt correctly and very few can do so is capable of acceptable accuracy. For instance the Army MTU rebuild program with rifle fired from machine rest was 10 shots in 4.5" at 300 yards. Some would go to 3" but rarely. A good bolt gun will shoot in 2" at 300 yards.
The TRW weapons were at one time thought to be good but MTU set up some exotic measurement fixture and figured out the threads in the receiver were not at right angle to the front of the receiver and from then on all their builds were on SA receivers.
If you will get a copy of Hinnant's book entitled "The Guide to Precision Rifle Barrel Fitting" you will read about a lot of the headaches manufacturers allow to get out the door even with bolt guns.
The out of square problems Bart refers to is really quite common in many vendors weapons. On a bolt gun these are easily corrected with a good lathe.
Check out http://www.bryantcustom.com/articles/true.htm which will give you a working knowledge of what has to be done to make a rifle shoot well.
These processes while they can be done on a M14 are problematical because if you chuck up a M14 receiver to square the front of the receiver and you take material off the front of it, that destroys the thread timing for the barrel.
Military rifles are set up to be rebuildable at depot by just taking off a tired barrel and replacing with new. The new barrels have the threads timed so that it will snug up right before 12:00 o'clock and the barrel can be torqued on. Thusly the interface of the receiver and barrel contact points is extremely critical and must be controlled to tight tolerances. If material is removed from front of receiver the replacement barrel will not contact the shoulder with enough "crush" to have the barrel "time up" at 12:00 o'clock.
Now with after market barrels you can square the receiver face and twick the barrel to get it to time at 12:00 a bit easier but squaring the threads is still problematical.
The 1903 and 03A3 rifles were built the same way and they too have thread alignment issues. For instance I had a barrel all threaded up for 03A3 and I had three actions with no barrels that had been squared. I screwed that barrel into one receiver and it contacted first a 4:00, the next one contacted at 9:00 and the third one contacted 360°. Which means the threads were out of square on the other two actions and on the money on the third one.
The M14 can have other problems wherein the bolt lugs don't bear equally.
A quick and dirty way to tell whether you have a problem is to examine your striker indent on a fired case. The ideal barrel to action set up is to have the bore center line of the barrel and the bore center line of the action in perfect alignment. If the barrel threads are out of square the line has a bend and it first shows up as off center striker hits. You will also find bolts with striker openings drill off center as well.
The industry "recommendation" allows for 1/2 the diameter of the striker indent to be off center. Medium bolt strikers measure around .060 diameter thusly the off center condition can be .030" out of alignment.
Frankford Arsenal tested millions of primers in a big study in the 50s and it was determined the offset of the striker indent had no detrimental ignition reliability up to .020" offset but after .020 the misfire rate is increased dramatically. Bottom line is the ammo boys determine reliability is compromised over .020" and the weapon boys produce rifles with .030" offset to meet production. It is a fact of life in mass production.
Now if you want to see precision take a look at the Barnard actions and the other actions the current crop of Palma Team shooters use. Their cases come out and show visually dead center striker indents and the rifles all shoot very well.
As Bart indicates you still have the problem of out of square case heads and bolt face out of square problems. If you will dig back about 1978 time frame there was a big article by a guy named Creighton Audette who did a lot of study on this and determined out of square case heads set up even more problems and if your bolt face is out of square, the threads are out of square and the bolt lugs don't contact evenly then you have compounded problems.
So basically while your rifle may shoot much better than others is it perhaps the fact is yours has a straighter bore/action centerline, lugs contact and bolt face is more square.
Case in point I had a new commercial rifle I got in 2005 and it shot horizontal groups that holes tended to touch or almost touch. I had a looksee at bolt lugs and bottom lug was not touching. I lapped in top lug and rifle started shooting round groups.
There are other problems to be experienced such as barrel is not properly stress relieved and starts to walk. Worst I ever had was a H&R breakdown rifle in 223. It consistantly shot a 3 shot group 1.5" wide and 10" high at 100. A call to H&R revealed they did not stress relieve barrels at all. They replaced barrel and it shot 2" at 100 in a round group.
I had two very good friends who were the ordnance types for the US Secret Service. One was formerly an ammo tech at Frankford Arsenal and the other built the ammo acceptance rifles while there. At USSS they did similar except one built all the sniper rifles. They too told me that their testing with Fed Match showed what Bart has alluded to. With their budget they could handload every last round for their counter sniper rifles yet they do not.
The problem is finding factory ammo that shoots well in the first place as most factory ammo has cannelures which is a perfect thing to do to a bullet to destroy it's accuracy. Mass produced hunting bullets for the industry can be bested by using Sierra matchkings about 99% of the time so if you test hunting ammo and then handload Sierras your data will show handload is best but it is because of the quality of the projectile thus your data will be skewed.
This by no means is a complete list of problems that can be encountered and need to be overcome to achieve that one hole rifle. Bart has been around the block a few times and has experienced things 99.9% of others never dream about.
On my gas guns I FL size. If I place round in chamber I ease the op rod about half way down and release it. If I am necking only with a gas gun I will load them long to be close to the lands (within .020") and place in chamber with easy let down. Also my gas cylinder plug has an extra vent hole to bleed off port pressure a bit. My Tanker Garand has a much larger hole in gas plug to bleed off excess pressures so ejection angle is correct.
I also apply Mobil 1 synthetic motor oil to gas ports or let run down op rod to keep the carbon build down.
In standing I will just pop round in mag and drop it. On my bolt guns most of them I FL size for with dies matched to the chamber so I don't move brass over .002" when sizing. Some I neck size the entire neck only and not the body. Some I partially neck size but on my bolt guns the chambers are much tighter. I guess you could say on the whole I FL all rapid fire. If you will look closely at Fed Match you will see a transistion angle between neck and shoulder that is not duplicatable in FL or Neck dies.
If you have a chrono you might also check your SD for a 30 round string between FL and neck sized. Basically shoot ten and tally, shoot next ten and tally and last 10 and tally. Shoot at 45 second intervals. You may well find a significant difference. SD of 10 or less was Marine Corps ammo room standard at Quantico for Marine Corps team.
__________________
Distinguished Rifleman High Power & Smallbore Prone
President's Hundred (Rifle) US Palma Teams(2)
US Dewar Team (2),4 Man Natl.Champ Team
My Notes about the accuracy of the early NM Garands
“Rifle U.S. Cal 30, M1, National Match 1957”. I think this was handed out at the National Matches because it was written as an informational brochure on the NM rifles of the year.
Section 5. Accuracy Firing
a. With the rifle supported in a rifle rest three ten shot groups are fired at 100 yards for accuracy using match ammunition. The average extreme spread of these groups cannot exceed 4.2 inches. Any one ten-shot group making this average cannot exceed 5.7 inches extreme spread. If these requirements are not met the rifle is rejected.
b. Figure 24 illustrates the distribution of averages of three ten-sho groups for 655 National Match Rifles targeted in this fashion. It is to be noted that all rifles to the right of the 4.2 inch line were screened out; the average of those accepted was a 3.4 inch average group size and eighty-eight rifles averaged three inches and under for three ten shot groups.
Amazing how everyone owns a sub MOA rack grade Garand!
The M1 Garand and M1a can be built into match grade rifles. From my buddies experiences, a match AR10 is more accurate and holds its tune longer. Plus AR10's are modular. If a M1a has a match barrel, is bedded in the stock, the gas cylinder unitized, the flash suppessor reamed, (might be more) it will outshoot most owners. But if none of that is done, it will simply have the accuracy of an issue rifle.
The GI stock was always too light and too thin to make an accurate rifle. It is too easy to twist and bend the GI stock. No one used the things, they went out and bought beefy wooden stocks, or fiberglass McMillian stocks.
How well do you shoot in a gas mask?
looks kinda dusty
how well are you going to shoot when the person behind you is yelling at you?
(and not in polite language either!)
not sure what they are doing, maybe emptying the rifle of water?
Original M14 receivers have thinner sidewalls than Springfield M1a receivers. Which is a good thing for the M1a receivers. I have handled milled aftermarket receivers that copied the GI dimensions, and came to the conclusion, mil spec ain't next to Godliness.
Neither is the fact the military M14 was not designed to be a target rifle. This is @Hummer70 opinion on the things:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5424409
Your test vehicle is likely to give different results because a bolt gun is a totally different animal than a gas gun. IF your rifle is set up right both lugs are contacting equally and the barrel may be contacting front of receiver 360° around and your bolt face may be square.
The M14 in issue condition is known as the worst performing rifle we ever fielded. I worked product engineering for the Army Small Cal Lab at Picatinny Arsenal and I had engineering responsibility for the M14 until the Chief transferred me to the Dover Devil MG project. While there my board was adjacent to Julio Savioli who was the draftsman for the M14 rifle and his name is on all the drawings for it. Al Cole was engineer in charge of the M14 and he was also a friend. Savy (as we called him) was a wealth of information on the M14 and had all kinds of stories about it as he not only did the drawings, he was in on the field testing.
First off consider the requirement facts from the engineering files from the government weapons production efforts.
1. acceptance accuracy for 1903 Springfield was 3" at 100 yards.
2. acceptance accuracy for M1 Garand was 5" at 100 yards.
3. acceptance accuracy for M14 was 5.5" at 100 yards and was waivered continually as it could not meet that.
4. acceptance accuracy for M16 series is 4.5" at 100 yards.
From SAAMI we have a recommendation of 3" at 100 yards and it is up to the vendor whether he wants to meet this or not.
H&R also made M14s and M1s and the contracts were shut down due to poor QA.
The M14 if rebuilt correctly and very few can do so is capable of acceptable accuracy. For instance the Army MTU rebuild program with rifle fired from machine rest was 10 shots in 4.5" at 300 yards. Some would go to 3" but rarely. A good bolt gun will shoot in 2" at 300 yards.
The TRW weapons were at one time thought to be good but MTU set up some exotic measurement fixture and figured out the threads in the receiver were not at right angle to the front of the receiver and from then on all their builds were on SA receivers.
If you will get a copy of Hinnant's book entitled "The Guide to Precision Rifle Barrel Fitting" you will read about a lot of the headaches manufacturers allow to get out the door even with bolt guns.
The out of square problems Bart refers to is really quite common in many vendors weapons. On a bolt gun these are easily corrected with a good lathe.
Check out http://www.bryantcustom.com/articles/true.htm which will give you a working knowledge of what has to be done to make a rifle shoot well.
These processes while they can be done on a M14 are problematical because if you chuck up a M14 receiver to square the front of the receiver and you take material off the front of it, that destroys the thread timing for the barrel.
Military rifles are set up to be rebuildable at depot by just taking off a tired barrel and replacing with new. The new barrels have the threads timed so that it will snug up right before 12:00 o'clock and the barrel can be torqued on. Thusly the interface of the receiver and barrel contact points is extremely critical and must be controlled to tight tolerances. If material is removed from front of receiver the replacement barrel will not contact the shoulder with enough "crush" to have the barrel "time up" at 12:00 o'clock.
Now with after market barrels you can square the receiver face and twick the barrel to get it to time at 12:00 a bit easier but squaring the threads is still problematical.
The 1903 and 03A3 rifles were built the same way and they too have thread alignment issues. For instance I had a barrel all threaded up for 03A3 and I had three actions with no barrels that had been squared. I screwed that barrel into one receiver and it contacted first a 4:00, the next one contacted at 9:00 and the third one contacted 360°. Which means the threads were out of square on the other two actions and on the money on the third one.
The M14 can have other problems wherein the bolt lugs don't bear equally.
A quick and dirty way to tell whether you have a problem is to examine your striker indent on a fired case. The ideal barrel to action set up is to have the bore center line of the barrel and the bore center line of the action in perfect alignment. If the barrel threads are out of square the line has a bend and it first shows up as off center striker hits. You will also find bolts with striker openings drill off center as well.
The industry "recommendation" allows for 1/2 the diameter of the striker indent to be off center. Medium bolt strikers measure around .060 diameter thusly the off center condition can be .030" out of alignment.
Frankford Arsenal tested millions of primers in a big study in the 50s and it was determined the offset of the striker indent had no detrimental ignition reliability up to .020" offset but after .020 the misfire rate is increased dramatically. Bottom line is the ammo boys determine reliability is compromised over .020" and the weapon boys produce rifles with .030" offset to meet production. It is a fact of life in mass production.
Now if you want to see precision take a look at the Barnard actions and the other actions the current crop of Palma Team shooters use. Their cases come out and show visually dead center striker indents and the rifles all shoot very well.
As Bart indicates you still have the problem of out of square case heads and bolt face out of square problems. If you will dig back about 1978 time frame there was a big article by a guy named Creighton Audette who did a lot of study on this and determined out of square case heads set up even more problems and if your bolt face is out of square, the threads are out of square and the bolt lugs don't contact evenly then you have compounded problems.
So basically while your rifle may shoot much better than others is it perhaps the fact is yours has a straighter bore/action centerline, lugs contact and bolt face is more square.
Case in point I had a new commercial rifle I got in 2005 and it shot horizontal groups that holes tended to touch or almost touch. I had a looksee at bolt lugs and bottom lug was not touching. I lapped in top lug and rifle started shooting round groups.
There are other problems to be experienced such as barrel is not properly stress relieved and starts to walk. Worst I ever had was a H&R breakdown rifle in 223. It consistantly shot a 3 shot group 1.5" wide and 10" high at 100. A call to H&R revealed they did not stress relieve barrels at all. They replaced barrel and it shot 2" at 100 in a round group.
I had two very good friends who were the ordnance types for the US Secret Service. One was formerly an ammo tech at Frankford Arsenal and the other built the ammo acceptance rifles while there. At USSS they did similar except one built all the sniper rifles. They too told me that their testing with Fed Match showed what Bart has alluded to. With their budget they could handload every last round for their counter sniper rifles yet they do not.
The problem is finding factory ammo that shoots well in the first place as most factory ammo has cannelures which is a perfect thing to do to a bullet to destroy it's accuracy. Mass produced hunting bullets for the industry can be bested by using Sierra matchkings about 99% of the time so if you test hunting ammo and then handload Sierras your data will show handload is best but it is because of the quality of the projectile thus your data will be skewed.
This by no means is a complete list of problems that can be encountered and need to be overcome to achieve that one hole rifle. Bart has been around the block a few times and has experienced things 99.9% of others never dream about.
On my gas guns I FL size. If I place round in chamber I ease the op rod about half way down and release it. If I am necking only with a gas gun I will load them long to be close to the lands (within .020") and place in chamber with easy let down. Also my gas cylinder plug has an extra vent hole to bleed off port pressure a bit. My Tanker Garand has a much larger hole in gas plug to bleed off excess pressures so ejection angle is correct.
I also apply Mobil 1 synthetic motor oil to gas ports or let run down op rod to keep the carbon build down.
In standing I will just pop round in mag and drop it. On my bolt guns most of them I FL size for with dies matched to the chamber so I don't move brass over .002" when sizing. Some I neck size the entire neck only and not the body. Some I partially neck size but on my bolt guns the chambers are much tighter. I guess you could say on the whole I FL all rapid fire. If you will look closely at Fed Match you will see a transistion angle between neck and shoulder that is not duplicatable in FL or Neck dies.
If you have a chrono you might also check your SD for a 30 round string between FL and neck sized. Basically shoot ten and tally, shoot next ten and tally and last 10 and tally. Shoot at 45 second intervals. You may well find a significant difference. SD of 10 or less was Marine Corps ammo room standard at Quantico for Marine Corps team.
__________________
Distinguished Rifleman High Power & Smallbore Prone
President's Hundred (Rifle) US Palma Teams(2)
US Dewar Team (2),4 Man Natl.Champ Team
My Notes about the accuracy of the early NM Garands
“Rifle U.S. Cal 30, M1, National Match 1957”. I think this was handed out at the National Matches because it was written as an informational brochure on the NM rifles of the year.
Section 5. Accuracy Firing
a. With the rifle supported in a rifle rest three ten shot groups are fired at 100 yards for accuracy using match ammunition. The average extreme spread of these groups cannot exceed 4.2 inches. Any one ten-shot group making this average cannot exceed 5.7 inches extreme spread. If these requirements are not met the rifle is rejected.
b. Figure 24 illustrates the distribution of averages of three ten-sho groups for 655 National Match Rifles targeted in this fashion. It is to be noted that all rifles to the right of the 4.2 inch line were screened out; the average of those accepted was a 3.4 inch average group size and eighty-eight rifles averaged three inches and under for three ten shot groups.
Amazing how everyone owns a sub MOA rack grade Garand!
The M1 Garand and M1a can be built into match grade rifles. From my buddies experiences, a match AR10 is more accurate and holds its tune longer. Plus AR10's are modular. If a M1a has a match barrel, is bedded in the stock, the gas cylinder unitized, the flash suppessor reamed, (might be more) it will outshoot most owners. But if none of that is done, it will simply have the accuracy of an issue rifle.
The GI stock was always too light and too thin to make an accurate rifle. It is too easy to twist and bend the GI stock. No one used the things, they went out and bought beefy wooden stocks, or fiberglass McMillian stocks.
How well do you shoot in a gas mask?
looks kinda dusty
how well are you going to shoot when the person behind you is yelling at you?
(and not in polite language either!)
not sure what they are doing, maybe emptying the rifle of water?
Last edited:
Megawatt maker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 699
This is good info, thank you.
I can sum it up simply however...the M14 was a government project, so like most government projects...it was a clusterf@$k. Lol.
M14/M1A is definitely a love/hate thing for sure.
I actually feel more fortunate than a lot of folks with these things. Reading around the internet, lots of folks never can get them to work right. All mine needed was a decent stock, and a couple shims..plus, and it's sub MOA..I'm very lucky actually.
Last edited:
Charlie98
Member
I wondered about those! It looked even bigger than the 25rd mags from CMI that were released a few years ago... I guess I was right!
Charlie98
Member
It really depends on what you expect out of it. I think a lot of people have unrealistic expectations up front. I've had all manner of firearms not shoot or perform like I thought they should out of the box. Some I fixed, some I tolerate, some went on down the trail. My M1a was one of those... but, thankfully, all mine needed was a few simple, inexpensive tweaks, and I'm happy as a pig in slop with mine. I am not lining up at Camp Perry (...or is it Atterbury, now?) with it, nor do I expect sub-MOA accuracy.
nettlle
Contributing Member
Maybe you all should mosey on over to the M14 Forum and take a look. There are no 6" MOA or 3" MOA out of the box M1A's with their premium walnut stocked rifles, Fulton, LRB, or Bula. Any of these walnut stocked rifles will shoot MOA or less out of the box. And believe me, if the rifles at this price, can't do 1" MOA or less this/these rifle(s) will be flamed on the forum. So to say a walnut stocked M1A is going to be a disappointment is simply a statement from those who do no more than do cut and paste. They do not have the experience.
Megawatt maker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 699
It did do sub MOA out of the box. I've said this. I never said a walnut stock couldn't allow sub moa.
Mine simply stopped being a sub moa rifle...and the reason why..that same heavy grade Walnut stock...warped. The proof is on paper. I installed the chassis..the sub moa returned..and then some.
I'm on that forum. There are indeed, MANY complaints about M1a's shooting like crap. There are also many signing it praises. Some swear by wood stocks, some swear at them.
Regardless of the noise...a few facts stand plain and clear. A wood stock may work well out if the box (mine did), but over time...eventually, it will needed bedded. Bedding one of these rifles is a very skilled art. It's nothing like doing a bolt action Remington 700, Mauser 98, etc. There are not many left these days who are good at it.
Why do you think Springfield stopped selling the Match and Super Match? Not because they were not selling..they sold everyone they made. Not price...they sold. It's because they lost the people, with the talent, ability, experience, and know how, to do the Bedding correctly.
Sooner or later, even a well bedded M1A, will need to be refreshed or redone. It's a matter of time and round count. It's well known and very well documented. Don't believe me...head on over to the M14 Forum.
So, that said, yes, wood CAN work...just not for long. I can send it out to Ron Smith and have him do tye bedding. He may be one of the few men left that can really do the job right, but then, that will cost me another grand or 1500. The chassis I have on it now cost 250, and it works better, will work better forever, because it's made out of modern material and engineer for this application. So..the old school battle rifle look just ain't worth it to me...
That said...I'll personally never have a wood stock on an M1a again. If I ever shoot my Match again, I'll be replacing its stock with a chassis once it bedding breaks down...and seeing how it's 10 years old already, I suspect it may already have..or very soon will.
YES, I'm saying a walnut stocked isn't just a disappointment...it's a joke and waste of time, on an M1a.
Don't like my opinion...oh well.
S.Crockett
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2022
- Messages
- 327
Good gawd, that read like a wordy, ranty, lawyer’s brief in an appeals case.Jeez-louise, it’s much easier to say that M1As are a P.I.T.A. to get any consistent accuracy out of.
There, done.
If needed, one could cogently add: instead of letting your M1A become a bottomless money-pit, a roughly similarly amount of USDs would be better spent on one of the .308/7.62 AR platforms out there. Just pick your make & model and be done with it.
Megawatt maker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 699
Me and the poster I replied to have been going back and forth.
Jeez-louise, it’s much easier to say that M1As are a P.I.T.A. to get any consistent accuracy out of.
There, done.
If needed, one could cogently add: instead of letting your M1A become a bottomless money-pit, a roughly similarly amount of USDs would be better spent on one of the .308/7.62 AR platforms out there. Just pick your make & model and be done with it.
You are correct. The M1A is a pita make consistent, and yes, I have several AR platform based 7.62, and yes, they are much easier to deal with.
The point of this thread was to talk about issues I was having with one of my M1as however.
S.Crockett
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2022
- Messages
- 327
Got it.
