M1A vs. M14

[josiewales]

Can someone explain the difference to me? I always thought that the M-14 was the full auto military version, and the M1A was the civilian version. I was at a gun show today and a guy told me that basically the difference was that the M14 is better quality than the M1A. This guy know what he was taking about? Thanks in advance!

 

[HOOfan_1]

M1A is just Springfield Armory's name for their brand of Semi-auto M-14

I believe they even used government receivers to make them when they first came out.

 

[Joe Demko]

M-14 was select fire, though full auto was frequently locked. Receivers were forged and made for the government by several subcontractors. Legal M-14's are vanishingly scarce, full auto enthusiasts tell me.
M1A is a commercially produced semi-automatic rifle on a cast receiver. Early production had a lot of GI surplus parts. As that pool dried up, more and more of the rifle has been commercial production parts. It is a popular gun. Other companies offer M-14 clones, but SA is the best known

 

[Curator]

The "advantage" of the M14's forged receiver compare to the Springfield M1A's cast receiver is mostly BS. Parts made with modern casting techniques and alloys are as good or better than forged parts. Companies like Tompson-Center and Sturm-Ruger pioneered the precision casting of gun parts and were rewarded with many aerospace contracts by NASA and the US military. Having trained with and carried the M14 in combat, I am a big fan of the rifle.

The M14 on full-auto was a joke and a total waste of ammo. However the gun had range and penetration. For full auto, the M14-A1 was as useful as the BAR at two-thirds the weight. My Springfield M1A is substantially more accurate than my Viet Nam issued M14 as it can consistently hit a 6" steel plate at 200 yards with GI issue ammo where my issue M14 rifle would be lucky to keep all the bullets within 12" at the same range.

 

[MistWolf]

Only Springfield can produce the M1A. They own the rights to the name. The M1A was originally made up of GI M14 parts assembled on a commercial semi-automatic only receiver made by Springfield. As GI parts have been drying up, Springfield has been forced to start producing other parts as well.

No other company can call their M14 clone an "M1A" without permission from Springfield

 

[josiewales]

Gotta say, an M-14 clone is one of my grail guns.
Thanks so much for the info!

 

[Bwana John]

The disconnector is a safety feature that was eliminated from the M-14 to make the M-1a.

While it acted as a trip for full auto fire it also prevented the rifle from firing out of battery.

It also held the op-rod captive in a manner that is mechanically superior.

ALSO, not only is the M-14 receiver dropped forged, but many of the parts were also forged on a M-14, compared to the cast receiver AND parts on the M-1a.

So yes, I would say the M-14 is superior to the M-1a.

 

[az_imuth]

Here's you a Winchester M14 if you can spare the 35 grand that you'll need to buy it. Follow this link to see some nice shots of the receiver.

 

[dprice3844444]

mine is a sei m14e2 select fire.one day i may fire it,lol

 

[Panzerschwein]

Like Bwana John said, the M1A is an inferior civillian copy of the true .mil M14.

While it is a decent gun, it doesn't compare in the strength or quality of the original M14. Forging is a much stronger and more appropriate manufacturing method vs. the the cast M1A reciever.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Like Bwana John said, the M1A is an inferior civillian copy of the true .mil M14.

While it is a decent gun, it doesn't compare in the strength or quality of the original M14. Forging is a much stronger and more appropriate manufacturing method vs. the the cast M1A reciever.

Jet engine rotor blades are cast...I think casting is plenty strong enough for the M1A receiver....

 

[TexasPatriot.308]

I carried an M14 42 years ago, own an M1A now, Springfield Armory....unless your life depended on it, don't see how you would know if the M1A is inferior. I swear by mine, just like coming home to an old ex and pickin up where you left off. the M1A is a helluva weapon unless you just gotta be a purist.

 

[Onmilo]

When the bolt cycles on an M14 it does so with a satisfying riiiing
The M1A cycles with a thunk.
The M14 uses all forged steel parts.
The latest M1A rifles feature investment cast parts which are not quite as durable as the USGI components.
The M14 features a chrome lined barrel, the M1A does not.

Last cost figure I saw billed directly to Uncle Sam for the M14 was $350
A current M1a will set you back a grand+

 

[nathan]

I would love to own a standard with loaded version. But i already have my HRA Garand that fits my need. Besides the .3006 packs a more lethal punch farther out.

 

[Bwana John]

Cast vs Hammer Forged

So....
Did Springfield Armory Inc. decided to use castings on the M-1a because they are better than hammer forgings, or because they are cheaper and probably "good enough"?

And...
If you had your choice, would you get a SAI M-1a rifle with all USGI parts or one with cast or sintered aftermarket parts?

Id rather have the best, not just what some bean counter decides is probably "good enough".

But.... I will have to do with a cast M-1a receiver with mostly USGI parts, a match quality barrel, with the safety sear removed, and a hokey system to hold the op-rod on... not because it is best, but because it all that is available to me.

 

[splithoof]

Want a really good clone?…Buy a Smith Enterprises rifle. Enough said.

 

[highpower]

While it is a decent gun, it doesn't compare in the strength or quality of the original M14. Forging is a much stronger and more appropriate manufacturing method vs. the the cast M1A reciever.

This is a common misconception as modern casting techniques produce a very strong finished product. Look at the reputation that Ruger has acquired over the years. I don't hear anyone saying that Rugers are inferior in strength.

I have owned and shot M1A's for many years now and have yet to wear one out. I will grant you that there seems to be a problem with the commercial extractors, but that seems to be the only thing that turns up consistently.

The M1A's that are considered to be the best are the those that are numbered between 40,000 and 90,000 or so. That was when Springfield Armory was awash in genuine GI parts and except for the receiver and stocks, they tend to be all government surplus parts. I have one of those (#040193) and it is a beauty. I have another with a serial number in the 120,000 range and it has only a GI bolt and a few other small GI parts on it. You know what? It has been as flawless as the other one.

The thing is, there are a number of M1A snobs out there, much like there are AR snobs and AK snobs. All think that, if you don't have the most expensive components on your gun, it isn't a worthy piece. Don't listen to them. Get as much first hand info as you can, then you can form an opinion based on something other than an individuals prejudice.

This my early M1A, sitting in a GI stock with a dummy selector switch, as close as I am ever going to get to owing a "real" M14.

 

[HOOfan_1]

So....
Did Springfield Armory Inc. decided to use castings on the M-1a because they are better than hammer forgings, or because they are cheaper and probably "good enough"?
)

How about because there was no reason for them to buy the forging equipment because they wouldn't make nearly as many rifles as the government did?

 

[MistWolf]

In the case of the M14 receiver, castings are not as strong as the forgings but I've yet to hear of a Springfield receiver wearing out or breaking prematurely.

A Springer built up from all USGI parts is a good rifle. So is an SEI or LRB but you are going to pay over $2k for the privilege of an M14 on a forged receiver.

I'll continue shooting my M14 built on a Springer receiver, as I have for the last two or three decades and spend time maintaining it properly instead of worrying about it being cast

 

[eastbank]

i too used the m-14 in vietnam and other than having full auto i have found no difference in operation, but my m1-a made in the early 80,s is more accurate. however i think the ammo i use today is better than issue GI ball.eastbank.

 

[AlexanderA]

In order to make the M1A semiautomatic only (that is, hard to convert to full automatic), the right side rail, where the full-automatic connector would normally go, was designed to be much wider. This had the beneficial side effect of making the receiver stiffer, and the bedding to the stock more solid. I've had target shooters, that have used both the M14 and the M1A in competition, tell me that the M1A is inherently more accurate.

That said, there's a big difference between the early M1A's, made with all GI parts except for the receiver, and the current production ones. Generally, the lower the serial number, the better. I have one with a serial number below 1,000, made in Devine, Texas, before the tradename was bought by the Reese family and production was moved to Illinois. Last time I checked, these "Devine" M1A's were selling in excess of $3,000. Mine has the National Match upgrades and is practically unfired.

 

[RUT]

>>I carried an M14 42 years ago<<

Ah, another old "pre M16" guy like me!

 

[mac66]

About 1.5 million M14s were produced from 1959-1964. By 1967 it was mostly replaced by the M16 in Vietnam and pretty much completely replaced gone by 1970 except for training purposes.

 

[Onmilo]

About 2000 of these are issued to SEAL units all over the world.

The Army has about another 3000 in a different configuration and the Navy has about 20-25,000 M14s in ships stores.
The guns are standard issue on all submarines.

The M14 has yet to be declared obsolete and is still class B limited standard issue.

 

[josiewales]

Guys, those are gorgeous! Wish I had 35k. :/