M1A losing ground to other 308's?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have shot M1, M14, and M1As off and on for quite a while. (Had to give the M14 back when I retired, and I hated to do it. My standard M1A was glass bedded early on and I have around 2500 plus rounds through it. Had a few failures to lock up initially, but that was my doing. After getting my ammo properly trimmed and gauged, it has run flawlessly. Even on my best days it outshoots me and always delivers more than I deserve. My only complaint is that the receiver is cast and not forged (I said I missed the M14)...I plan to wear out at least one barrel and more if I can manage it. I have no intention of passing on any NIB guns to posterity.

As to reload speed, I too frankly prefer the M1. While loaded the M14 has the edge, of course. But you have to haul around all those box mags, and in the reload yank out the old one, drop or stash it, and insert the new one and pull the op rod handle to chamber the first round.

The M1 clips stash and carry in lots of ways, from the standard 10 compartment belt to bandoliers to a pocket. When the rifle goes ping (music, anyone?) you just shove a new one in and go right back to work. When it all goes right it is downright impressive to behold.

Between that, the balance, the nostalgia, and the unquestionable quality of the M1, it's a great old warhorse.

Out where I live God has placed a large number of light colored rocks at all kinds of various distances. I can only surmise that He knew I would want to shoot at them with a Garand in the fullness of time. He really knew how to lay out a rifle range.

Scenery isn't bad, either.
 
I figured you guys would follow the link. The image's name is "afghanistan1.JPG" and the guy has an AN/PEQ-2 mounted on the RHS.

It's documented that the US Army Rangers use the SR-25.

Portugal and the Sudan used the AR-10 in the 60's.

I'll see if I can find some direct contemporary evidence.

-z
 
I'm still looking for a reference you'll accept..

But really, it's irrelevant if a particular weapon is currently in use by our military. The Berreta M9 is our sidearm, and few argue for its superiority.

A Battle Rifle is defined by shooting a full-power cartridge in semi or full auto. The AR10/SR25 qualifies. If we want to talk reliability, that is an interesting question. I wonder if we can find a comparative study of the FAL vs. the M14 vs. the AR10/SR25?

In any case, the AR10 ought to be approximately as reliable as the AR15 platform, except with an edge due to the massive bolt carrier. Just like any weapons system, the M16 fails in dirty environments when the user does not clean it properly, but those units who are serious about cleaning do not report weapons problems.

These days, a 308 weapon is much more likely to be used in a D.M. role than anything else. Thus, it makes sense to look at accuracy as a primary criteria.

Compared to the M16 system, the M14 requires more skilled armorers and is comparatively much more difficult to accurize (thus to maintain an accurate M14 requires more skills).

-z
 
There should be info somewhere about the military trials between the FAL (T48) and the soon to be M14 (T37/T44). At one point I came across something that said the FAL was preferred, but politics won out and we adopted the US made M14 instead.

Not sure about any comparisons of either of them to the AR-10/SR25 tho.
 
Whatever the WRITTEN history might say, the reality was probably quite different. My theory is that the tests were written with parameters that favored the M14 and pointed to differences in the systems as difficiencies. Despite this, we know that the major reason that we ended up with the M14 was the flat-out lie that it could be made on the already available Garand machinery. In truth, (and they knew it) the M14 neede completely new tooling and engineering.

Those Americans conducting the tests were determined to ensure that the ARMY DESIGNED rifle would win. Funny how things work out... it was their protectionism that precipitated the AR-15 being rammed down their throats. The AR-15 itself was an undeveloped weapon. Had it gotten the mounds of money that Garand's design got, the AR-15 would likely have evolved into something useable instead of passable.

The M14 is losing ground because it's 60-year-old design. Modern tastes and expectations are far different than what they were then. Wood and steel have given way to plastic and aluminum. Lasers, Optics, Ammunition, and manufacturing have all improved to a point where they can be integrated into lightweight, potent, and effective packages that are more durable than those of the past.

The 'modular' T48 was the better weapon and might have staved off the tide... perhaps even halting the AR-15 altogether in its tracks. It is my feeling that with the T48, we would have been completely satisfied for years longer.
 
I don't know if it's losing ground, but I Thank You sir! You reminded me that with the death of the UWB (Ugly Weapon Ban), Saiga's will now have hi-capacity (20-30) round magazines available, and so I am DEFINITELY in the market for a .308 Saiga.
Click to expand...

Don't get too excited. It seems that EAA hasnt been able to announce these things. In fact it doesnt appear that Russia even makes a greater than 10 round magazine for the Saiga as THEY have their own weird magazine capacity rules as well. Hopefully this will get worked out soon.

I did see a message from Robinson Arms that no higher capacity magazines would be made available for the VEPR series .308 rifles. That doesnt bode well for the Saiga.
 
Zak
That is true. The action is in there pretty tight and you need a dowel to hammer it out from the trigger group end. Mine has never had the action removed since Springfield discourages it. So in short it has never been removed since 87 or 88 and it goes bang every time.

I love my M1A but not as much as my M1 Garand. I has for me (no flames) less felt recoil with about 5 to 10% more power. That has never made sense to me it just is.
 
As to reload speed, I too frankly prefer the M1. While loaded the M14 has the edge, of course. But you have to haul around all those box mags, and in the reload yank out the old one, drop or stash it, and insert the new one and pull the op rod handle to chamber the first round.
Click to expand...

I haven't used it, but my M1A has a stripper clip guide. Is there any reason why one can't do strip loads with the same efficiency as the M1?

-- Dizos
 
M1 en bloc clips are quicker than standard stripper clips.

With the Garand, the entire loaded clip is inserted into the rifle, clip and ammo and all. It requires one simple, expedient motion.

With conventional stripper clips, the loaded clip must be fitted into its slot, and then the cartridges must be forced out of the clip and into the rifle. Then the empty clip must be discarded. In practice, this is a slower, and sometimes more fault-prone, procedure.

The Garand's en bloc clips are the fastest reload around. Their greater speed (and other advantages) more than make up for their lesser 8-round capacity.
 
Why are people so obsessed with magazine loading speed? Get yourself 20 or 25 M14 or AR10 mags and be done with it. If you shoot that many under time pressure and are still living, your barrel will no longer be shooting to the original POA if it hasn't melted or exploded, and you'd better have some belt-fed weapons backing you up.

-z
 
The M14 is losing ground because it's 60-year-old design. Modern tastes and expectations are far different than what they were then.
Click to expand...



Just because a design is "old" doesn't mean it's obsolete. ?????, the 1911 was designed almost a century ago and if you go to any IPSC/USPSA/IDPA shoot guess which platform you see the most of out there. Old |= Obsolete.

I've got an M1A myself, and I love it, but were I to move out of Kalifornistan I wouldn't hesitate to pick up a FAL or an AR-10. I just don't subscribe to this "my rifle is the best because I bought it" bullish. Buy whatever you want/can, equip it with enough goodies to scare the ATF, and learn how to shoot a fly's nads out with it. Enough said.
 
[something about kick-starting M14 systems] to eject a stuck case), or having other malfs.
Click to expand...
Not one poster on any forum I've reported this has has either the courage to test it themselves, or has offered any real-life experience to refute it:

I tested an M1A and an FAL with downloaded ammo. The M1A cycled clean with M80 ball loads down to and below 1700 fps. Even with the most extreme adjustments on its MANUALLY adjustable gas system, the FAL permantly choked two or three loads higher up in my test sequence--2050 fps or so, IIRC.

It was also far easier to clear jams in the M1A (had an ammo failure--case broke half-inch in front of the head) than the FAL.

It's easier to safely kick an M1A op rod than an FAL charging handle. Where I shoot, there are no barricades or trees and in some places the rocks are all too small for such improvised use.

Other than the now almost-apocryphal tests in the 1950s, I've seen no real side-by-side high round count adverse conditions testing of these two rifles (there was one fairly recent Alaska test which almost did it right for cold weather only, reported in some magazine like SWAT). Betcha they both do just fine in sandy conditions if previously lubed with Moly grease and then wiped almost bone-dry.

For those who say the T48 FAL actually did *better* in the U.S. Army trials, I'd like to see particulars like the specific conditions, the type of failure, the frequency and the title of the report. If it's there, we should be able to find it.

BUT.....FAL extractors just might be better. Any reports of how essential THAT part is in the "essential spare parts kit" for the FAL world?
 
Why are people so obsessed with magazine loading speed? Get yourself 20 or 25 M14 or AR10 mags and be done with it.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, we're discussing the speed with which an empty rifle can be reloaded with a full clip/magazine. We are not discussing the loading of cartridges into an empty clip/magazine.

This is worthy of discussion whether you own 1 magazine or 50. If you ever need to fire more rounds than your rifle can hold, the time required to reload your rifle with a fresh magazine/clip can be important.

Ultimately, such details are probably meaningless anyway, but it's fun to discuss.:)
 
The AR10 might start winding up in deployment with military units soon enough.

The AR10 was accepted by the Army Marksmanship Unit and has seen quite a bit of work being done with the rifle, it may finally be seeing deployment.

With that in mind the Armalite picture of the rifle supposedly being deployed in Afganistan is atleast somewhat more plausible.


I can't figure out exactly why the AMU decided to go with the AR10 over the SR25. Seems the SR25 is the more widely favored gun for 308AR platforms in the military setting and keeping parts commonality between adopted firearms would seem smart.

Who knows, maybe the Army is thinking that they have a ton of M14 magazines that are workable/convertable to work with AR10s that they may take into inventory? Not that the AR10 is officially adopted.
 
Unless I'm mistaken, we're discussing the speed with which an empty rifle can be reloaded with a full clip/magazine. We are not discussing the loading of cartridges into an empty clip/magazine.

This is worthy of discussion whether you own 1 magazine or 50. If you ever need to fire more rounds than your rifle can hold, the time required to reload your rifle with a fresh magazine/clip can be important.
Click to expand...
Ok, my misunderstanding. But this way it's even worse.

Worried about mag reload times? You've got to be kidding me! With an AR10/M1A, you retain firing grip and use your week hand to reload from the bottom. You can even to a "tactical" reload with one in the chamber and stay ready to rock, should something unexpected come up.

With the Garand, a RH shooter has to remove his firing grip, and the gun cannot be fired during the reload cycle.

Even assuming that you can reload either Garand OR a M14/AR10 in, say, 2 seconds, you need to reload the Garand every 8 rounds, the M14/AR10 every 20. Thus for every 20 rounds, the M14/AR10 shooter needs to spend 2 seconds reloading, but the Garand shooter needs to spend 5 seconds reloading.

-z
 
"A side note: Why are semi-auto FAL clones always called FALs but semi-auto M14 clones called M1As. I know that Springfield calls them that, but its just their brand name. Screw them and call it an M14."

Well, we call M16 clones AR15s and nobody seems to have a problem with that. They are in fact two similar but different weapons. One is select fire and the other one isn't. Personally, I find this to be the logical thing to do. If someone says to me that they own an M16, that has a different meaning than if someone tells me they own an AR15. It only stands to reason that if someone tells me they have an M14, the meaning is different than someone telling me they own an M1A. Since again, they arn't the same thing. I do find it a shame that they chose the name M1A since many people then ask you for clarification as to whether you are talking about an M1. I have not gotten into the whole M14 clone subject all that much. I own one, but have not spent a lot of time reading about them or discussing them. I am not sure what you call the other clone rifles such as the Armscor, or the Polytech, or one put together by someone such as Fulton Armory.

I am not sure why reloading an empty rifle generates so much traffic. But, to me, it is like anything else. If you take the time to become good with one platform, you will always be better than someone that didn't. By the same token, you will almost certainly be far faster than someone using a different platform that also didn't take the time to become good with it. This is an individual thing. I can tell you for certain that dispite the fact that I own three M1 rifles and shoot them on occasion, I can load a fixed magazine into my M1A faster than I can load an enbloc clip into one of my M1s. To me, I would have to be convinced that the speed with which someone can load an M1 is going to overcome it's magazine capacity. Again, my own opinion, but I see the magazine of the M1 as a significant drawback. This was the first thing that came to my mind when I began shooting M1s. As an example, I have shot a match in which you engaged a target at an unknown range and tried to get as many hits on the target as you could in 30 seconds (after you made five pistol shots at close range which were included in the 30 seconds). In one case, I estimated the target to be at approx. 400 yards. It turned out, I had guessed right and had my sights set correctly. However, at 400 yards you don't just blaze away at the target. It required pretty careful shots to hit it. I found that I could hit the target about six times in 30 seconds. I always ended up missing at least once and usually a couple times. But, what really limited me was having to reload my M1. If I had chosen to use my M1A, I am sure I could have gotten at least a couple more hits in the time allows. I also think that just the thought of having to reload was at least a small factor. With the M1A I wouldn't have had to reload at all.
 
I don't believe there are many rifles that can rival the M14, nevermind the .308 rifles. However, the FAL and G3 types come very close, and are prefered by some people. I still think that the M14 is the best battle rifle available, even today. With the FAL and M1 coming in 2nd.

The M14 has the best mix of accuracy, durability, light weight (lightest of all BRs when in a fiberglass stock), and plain old dependability.

If someone says to me that they own an M16, that has a different meaning than if someone tells me they own an AR15.
Click to expand...

The AR15 (the origonal one) was a prototype of the M16, and it WAS also full auto.

My rifle IS an M14, I don't like M1As, except those made in the 80s with all GI parts. Springfield's QC has dropped off like a rock the past decade or so.
 
"The AR15 (the origonal one) was a prototype of the M16, and it WAS also full auto."

There are also plenty of select fire AR15s that have been converted over the years. However, that is a different breed of cat, to me. I would call them a select fire AR15. The term AR15 does not imply select fire to me. Call them what you will. If it makes you feel better you can call your HK a heavy machine gun. You can call a house a car and a car a house if you want to. But, it will only hamper effective communication.
 
The AR15 (the origonal one) was a prototype of the M16, and it WAS also full auto.
Click to expand...
I thought that it was oficially called the AR only insofar as Armalite's internal development was concerned, and that it was given the XM designation when it was submitted to DoD...
 
Colt's screw up was when they paid tribute to Armalite using the "AR15" name on some of the first full auto firearms that were taken into US inventory.

Here's a picture of an old gun that was found in the armory of a reserve base, nearly pristine. Somewhere along the line the "AR15" name got reserved for rifles destined for civilian ownership while the M16 name was reserved for military destined use.

I consider the entire family to be the "AR15" family and only get specific when I want to denote select fire capability.

DCP_0055.jpg
 
Are military rifles designated : Cal. .223 ?

I don't remember, if I ever paid attention when I actually was issued one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top