Sheepdog1968
Member
SWAT magazine about three issues ago ran a nice article on the good and bad of M14s. It's worth a read. If you don't subscribe to SWAT I highly reccomend you do. IMO, it's the best gun magazine out there.
Reliabilty of M14 or M1A
- Thread starter AR27
- Start date
- Status
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
Can you give us the Cliff Notes version?
BSW
JR47
Member
It wasn't exactly a balanced piece. The author didn't really do much more than spout the usual time-worn crap about the gun. It is essentially the same tripe from 1969. "It's too heavy", "too long", aftermarket stocks are "too expensive". Can't carry "enough" ammo, and so on. He ignored the power advantage of the rifle, the reliability, and the accuracy advantage over the rack-grade Stoner designs in common use.
I often wonder just how many of us actually carry ten or twelve loaded AR mags around on a usual basis? In Vietnam, we carried 12 mags on an ambush, or on a patrol designed to attract enemy attention. That's 240 rounds. The rifles were used as semi-autos, even the selector-equipped versions, unless we were breaking an ambush. The M16 equipped soldiers that I saw could dump 30 rounds in a couple of seconds, and usually did. Unless you're trying to poison the trees with lead, it was a waste.
I own an SA M1A1, their actual designation on the box for a select-fire M1A. It has over 15K through it, without failure of any sort.
There are more fake magazines around for the M14 than there are real ones. It was quite a business for a number of years, and I, like many others, wass sucked into buying forged mags. Some even work. The majority, however, are little more than targets, or paper weights.
The current Checkmate mags work in a select-fire gun. Trust me on that.
I often wonder just how many of us actually carry ten or twelve loaded AR mags around on a usual basis? In Vietnam, we carried 12 mags on an ambush, or on a patrol designed to attract enemy attention. That's 240 rounds. The rifles were used as semi-autos, even the selector-equipped versions, unless we were breaking an ambush. The M16 equipped soldiers that I saw could dump 30 rounds in a couple of seconds, and usually did. Unless you're trying to poison the trees with lead, it was a waste.
I own an SA M1A1, their actual designation on the box for a select-fire M1A. It has over 15K through it, without failure of any sort.
There are more fake magazines around for the M14 than there are real ones. It was quite a business for a number of years, and I, like many others, wass sucked into buying forged mags. Some even work. The majority, however, are little more than targets, or paper weights.
The current Checkmate mags work in a select-fire gun. Trust me on that.
chieftain
Member
BINGO!
I carried 13 magazines as my standard battle load with my M14, but you are spot on brother.
Only remember using my selector twice in combat. The loss of control never would make up for the difference in hit potential.
These folks did not carry an M14 in combat. They are making an imaginary argument about something that they really have no idea what they are talking about. They frankly never had the problems or successes with the M14 in real combat.
I have fought both the M14 and M16. Give me an M14, or as a civilian I have the Springfield Armory M1A. It is simply put, superior for the civilian. And unlike the FAL, I need no sand cuts or other major modifications to be reliable in the desert I live in.
On the other hand, the M14 has never been the cause of American service men being killed or wounded in combat. (Please no preaching, I personally witnessed this, not hearsay or read about.) No one carrying or fronting for the Matty Mattel can say that.
Go figure.
Fred
readyme
Member
All this talk about Springfield M1A's has got me jonesin' again for one..... which version does everybody recommend to purchase? Standard, Loaded, National Match??? Are there major gains with each added dollar sign?
Al Mack 1
Member
I see here that some of you don't know about the M14 Firing line web site. For those who need to learn more about there M1-A's. And get some tips on making them better. Thats the place to look.
Powerglide
Member
There are parts that can be upgraded to better steel and parts that can be polished for a pleasing combination of reliablity and accuracy. All of them have to do with bolt and boltways, ramps, rods, etc. They can be nice if properly set up.Not that the M14 SA isn't.
You miss the point. It is not about how many mags are carried, it is about weight. Reducing weight increases the effectiveness of soldiers.
Your BS about mattel rifles just demonstrates your bias.
I am also impressed that you are able to state that no M14 has ever resulted in the death of its operator. Your ability to witness to every soldier who ever used an M14 in combat is astounding. Maybe you could use your remote viewing skills to find bin laden for the CIA.
The M14 and other 7.62NATO weapons have a place, but that place is not in the hands of the average infantryman. Get over your nostalgia for the way things were almost 70 years ago.
There is only one company that makes the M1A. There is only one company that can legally make M1As. That's Springfield Armory. They hold the copyright.
Ithaca37, you've had your combat experience and chieftain has had his. Are you telling us chieftain didn't witness what he testifies he did?
Ithaca37, you've had your combat experience and chieftain has had his. Are you telling us chieftain didn't witness what he testifies he did?
@ Ithaca:
calm down. jeez. sounds like someone is going through "that time of the month". change your pads, have a cigarette and rejoin the discussion. i am not discrediting your opinion but lets not assume that someone is full of "BS" or "bias" just because you are angry.
....and it wasnt "almost 70 years ago". it was less than 50 years ago if we are talking about m14 vs m16 reliability. anyway, i think that there are a lot of veterans and feelings out there that live by this conviction: and that is the introduction of the M16 cost lives due to an unreliable gun. i don't believe that is a bold statement nor would i call someone that had that view, "biased" or a liar for that matter.
calm down. jeez. sounds like someone is going through "that time of the month". change your pads, have a cigarette and rejoin the discussion. i am not discrediting your opinion but lets not assume that someone is full of "BS" or "bias" just because you are angry.
....and it wasnt "almost 70 years ago". it was less than 50 years ago if we are talking about m14 vs m16 reliability. anyway, i think that there are a lot of veterans and feelings out there that live by this conviction: and that is the introduction of the M16 cost lives due to an unreliable gun. i don't believe that is a bold statement nor would i call someone that had that view, "biased" or a liar for that matter.
I'll say this.. I've studied up on 'Nam even though the Tet Offensive occured ten years before I was born. I've seen a wonderful pic of this poor grunt running away from an ambush with his 16 broke for cleaning. With my M1A, I don't have to feat that. I can get at the bolt recesses and the bolt itself without rendering my rifle inoperable. So when I run, I can pull my cleaning rod out, hit the bolt release and Sat Cong.
Also, I would bet my life on a Garand as readily as a 14.
Also, I would bet my life on a Garand as readily as a 14.
chieftain
Member
No you are wrong about what the point is. It’s about how many rounds for a given weight. More is always better than less. But the ones you have, regardless of how many, must be effective, and not be wasted, that normally means semi auto.
First, it ain’t BS, no matter what your experience was in NAM. Second, yes I am bias. Some folks will not put up with bad customer service, I will not put up with a rifle that has gotten American Troops killed and wounded. Particularly when some of them were friends of mine. What is your standard?
Nope, I am dealing with fact. So let’s have the source of your knowledge and experience? Yea!
It ain't about nostalgia, it was about my staying alive. It is my life. And please learn to do math, your embarrassing yourself with that statement.
Go figure.
Fred
JoelSteinbach
Member
When loading for either the M1a or M14, I found that I must use a small base sizing die as well as keeping the case trimmed to the spec.
General Geoff
Member
The rifle design wasn't the problem, it was the surrounding circumstances (such as a last minute change in powder type for ammunition which fouled the weapon much more quickly, and the erroneous belief that the rifles would not require cleaning) during its debut in combat. You have every reason to distrust the AR-15 design because of your first-hand experiences in combat. But the past is the past, the as-issued weapons and maintenance equipment and procedures have been corrected.
To wit, 'this ain't your granddaddy's M16.'
chieftain
Member
If you believe that powder was THE problem. You simply don’t know. The powder was only PART of the problem only, told only by those who don’t know, or are, or were avoiding responsibility for what did in fact happen to us with that rifle. It was a major issue, among seveal major issues.
For those interested in facts, not Kool Aide. Jouster.com, Sea Stories, the saga of the M16 I & II. Written by a Retired LtCol who was a company commander during those dreadful times, I was attached to 1/3 during a period of this time.
Oh yea, As to “your granddaddy’s rifle”, none of my ancestors could have ever used an M16. Mauser and HK would have been, and is, the then and now. I am the son of an immigrant, legal of course.
For me, the M14 was and still is stone reliable. The only criticism of consequence was that it was heavy. Swapping unreliable for weight, in a combat arm has never been a positive move, ever.
Go figure.
Fred
Hangingrock
Member
While (13) magazines!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m really impressed. As for me I maxed out at (8) with (6) on the belt, (1) in the rifle, and (1) in a standard single magazine pouch slightly modified on the butt stock. My M14 didn’t have the selector switch. In comparison (160) rounds don’t seem like much compared to (260) rounds.
USMC 64-68.
I’m really impressed. As for me I maxed out at (8) with (6) on the belt, (1) in the rifle, and (1) in a standard single magazine pouch slightly modified on the butt stock. My M14 didn’t have the selector switch. In comparison (160) rounds don’t seem like much compared to (260) rounds. USMC 64-68.There's no doubt the introduction of the M16 had problems, and the major problem was tight chambers during the exponential ramp up in production circa 1968. It got so bad teams were sent into the field to check chambers and immediately replace any weapon that no-go'd. I certainly don't question those who saw problems.
For an apples to apples comparison, tho, check the field reports in the early days of the Garand. Most of those soldiers aren't well represented on the infoweb, but their are documents available that express the difficulty of ramping up construction, seeing many more weapons seize up, and the letters exchanged at various levels attempting to balance costs vs. reliability. Early high production Garands got soldiers killed, too. No, it's not the M14, but then again, the M14 was well down the road by the time Vietnam came around. Those shooting the Garand had paid the dues.
As for the "reliabilty" of any weapon to throw it in a creek or fill it with dust, try a G3. It's just as good, maybe even better as it's the weapon of choice in Africa by hunters, self defense forces, and poachers. It flat works in a bad environment, no gas piston to mess with, etc. Compared to the civilian AK's with no standard blueprint, variable quality, and a complete lack of interchangeable parts, or the M14/M1A with exposed bolt, and a piston chamber that collects lead and jacket material, it's got a better record, says me.
I've tossed mine in a creek and fired it, filled it with gravel mine tailings and shot it, carried it in sub freezing temps in the sleet and rain hunting deer. Frankly, any military rack grade weapon will be far more reliable than a walnut and blue steel civilian rifle in those circumstances - including the AR.
Like the M14 owner suggested, Just Lube It, they all require lube, maintenance, and at least periodic cleaning. There are NO weapons that can be left uncleaned and will shoot for decades, regardless of the internet commandos who insist it can be done. I seriously doubt they never change the oil or wash their car, never vacuum the carpet, never clean the refrigerator - oh, wait, the first AK users didn't have any of that. Maybe these don't, either.
There's reliable at the rate of 50 rounds a month, and reliable at 1000 rounds a weekend. People who shoot a lot of rounds aren't using the larger calibers that much, and they express the intent to make every shot count, too. Those that shoot 1000 rounds a weekend aren't out there on spray and pray, and it's a little arrogant to assume it. Most of the intermediate caliber users are today's competitive shooters in three gun, Police officers in training, or soldiers at a knock down range where bullseyes aren't the dominant target, ones that move are.
For those who want a large caliber weapon, go for it, just don't expect many of us to follow along. The ratio of M4's to M14's in Afghanistan is 130,000 to 5,000, that's all the Army needed to get the job done. The average truck driver, clerk, mechanic, or CA Farm advisor would be unnecessarily burdened with one. It's the M14's swan song, most were already out of inventory, recalled from State National Guard shooting teams where they constantly place second to an AR.
Oops, I guess that reality check shouldn't be mentioned. Too bad the '03 sharpshooters can't get their two cents in and demonize those rapid fire bullet wasters that replaced them. The M14 crowd does well enough emulating them on the web, tho.
For an apples to apples comparison, tho, check the field reports in the early days of the Garand. Most of those soldiers aren't well represented on the infoweb, but their are documents available that express the difficulty of ramping up construction, seeing many more weapons seize up, and the letters exchanged at various levels attempting to balance costs vs. reliability. Early high production Garands got soldiers killed, too. No, it's not the M14, but then again, the M14 was well down the road by the time Vietnam came around. Those shooting the Garand had paid the dues.
As for the "reliabilty" of any weapon to throw it in a creek or fill it with dust, try a G3. It's just as good, maybe even better as it's the weapon of choice in Africa by hunters, self defense forces, and poachers. It flat works in a bad environment, no gas piston to mess with, etc. Compared to the civilian AK's with no standard blueprint, variable quality, and a complete lack of interchangeable parts, or the M14/M1A with exposed bolt, and a piston chamber that collects lead and jacket material, it's got a better record, says me.
I've tossed mine in a creek and fired it, filled it with gravel mine tailings and shot it, carried it in sub freezing temps in the sleet and rain hunting deer. Frankly, any military rack grade weapon will be far more reliable than a walnut and blue steel civilian rifle in those circumstances - including the AR.Like the M14 owner suggested, Just Lube It, they all require lube, maintenance, and at least periodic cleaning. There are NO weapons that can be left uncleaned and will shoot for decades, regardless of the internet commandos who insist it can be done. I seriously doubt they never change the oil or wash their car, never vacuum the carpet, never clean the refrigerator - oh, wait, the first AK users didn't have any of that. Maybe these don't, either.
There's reliable at the rate of 50 rounds a month, and reliable at 1000 rounds a weekend. People who shoot a lot of rounds aren't using the larger calibers that much, and they express the intent to make every shot count, too. Those that shoot 1000 rounds a weekend aren't out there on spray and pray, and it's a little arrogant to assume it. Most of the intermediate caliber users are today's competitive shooters in three gun, Police officers in training, or soldiers at a knock down range where bullseyes aren't the dominant target, ones that move are.
For those who want a large caliber weapon, go for it, just don't expect many of us to follow along. The ratio of M4's to M14's in Afghanistan is 130,000 to 5,000, that's all the Army needed to get the job done. The average truck driver, clerk, mechanic, or CA Farm advisor would be unnecessarily burdened with one. It's the M14's swan song, most were already out of inventory, recalled from State National Guard shooting teams where they constantly place second to an AR.
Oops, I guess that reality check shouldn't be mentioned.
Too bad the '03 sharpshooters can't get their two cents in and demonize those rapid fire bullet wasters that replaced them. The M14 crowd does well enough emulating them on the web, tho.chieftain
Member
I was in 66 to 76. I carried 9 on the belt with suspenders, & 4 in the flack jacket. One in the rifle when at work.
Sigh!
If you in fact read Jouster.com, Col Culver addresses the chamber checking fiasco episodes too, explicitly, not once but a couple times. Chamber specs were a major issue too, so was lack of chrome (Thanks specifically to the SOB McNamara) its saved him under $2.00 per weapon. That should be on a bunch of graves.
AS to the G3, just have some extra rollers around. But what do you expect from Mauser, excuse me I mean HK.
Haven't had a lick of trouble with either my 03A3 or my 1917 Enfield U.S. Pattern. I haven't put thousands of rounds in a weekend through them either. Who's reality do you deal with? I have only had to deal with my own.
I did put several hundred rounds a week through an M1 Garand, not in combat and not mine, but was issued one in ITR. No problems there. My own Garand runs like a top. 1943 issue Springfield (the real deal, not todays Springfield Armory)
Would you be so kind as to offer the documents, books or what ever you refer to that show that the M1 Garand cost American lives please. I would like to get a copy.
Thank you.
Fred
PS IF I had to go to war in Afghanistan today and had a choice of regular issue military chamberings. I would choose if available to me, the SCAR(H) MK17 in 7.62 NATO 18" barrel. Probably using a Trijicon ACOG with the 7.62 drop compensator with a green reticle. Just my way.
Hangingrock
Member
I forgot to mention also had a 1911A-1 (Ithaca WW2 vintage) with (2) twin magazine pouches. Those flack jackets were miserable hot.
Semper Fi
Last edited:
chieftain
Member
I don't remember who made my 1911-A1 but I only carried one double pouch with 2 magazines. (Later I switched to a S&W Victory model revolver).
My Flak jacket was the newer one with plates, and of course the pockets (it would stop a 45acp) only had a small raise for a collar though. Didn't always keep the straps and stuff off the neck, if you moved a lot or quickly.
The earlier Flak vest had a better collar, and was full of "wadding" of some sort, better for carrying gear around your neck. Both sure were hot and humid. When on perimeter or in our holes at night, we would drop the flak jacket. If "STUFF" went down, i would leave that flak jacket in a heart beat. But we had to wear them out on operations, patrols, ambush, LP/OP's and such.
For those reading this, we were young, but these were NOT the good old days.
I am jealous of the new carrying gear, that we used to call 782 gear. This new stuff looks great. In additon to those 13 magazines, I also carried a gallon of water on the belt, 4 canteen's, K-bar, 45 + the two mags, Aid puch and 4 frag grenades M26A1's, and two smokes. on my straps were the compass, and two more Smoke grenades. That's before I put on the pack and the radio, a PRC-41 UHF.
Lord I don't miss humping with that stuff. I often was driven to my knees just jumping off a Duce & a Half.
Go figure.
Fred
Frankly, any military rack grade weapon will be far more reliable than a walnut and blue steel civilian rifle in those circumstances
It's pretty hard to stop a bolt action "civilian rifle". The walnut may eventually wrap enough to push the barrel and effect poi but it still will work. You can get
the bolt to sieze in very cold whether but same
goes any semi. What exactly are you arguing?
It's pretty hard to stop a bolt action "civilian rifle". The walnut may eventually wrap enough to push the barrel and effect poi but it still will work. You can get
the bolt to sieze in very cold whether but same
goes any semi. What exactly are you arguing?
Float Pilot
Member
I was issued an M-14 with a selector during part of my first two enlistments. It was very reliable and the only problem I ever had was small grain sand getting into the action rails while crawling up a couple beaches. The openings around the top & edges of the bolt / action were the only weak point. Mine even worked after swimming in under the surf as long as you shook it a couple times and maybe ran the bolt once or twice.
It was only usable on full auto if you managed to wrap the forward part of the sling around something like a fence post, small tree or bush. Somebody had the bright idea that the auto-capable M-14s should fire while the M60 gunner was changing belts or barrels. They did not sound similar in their rates of fire so I am sure it did not fool anyone.
Later when I was in a reserve Army LRSU det we had some M-21s. They were prone to malfunction. Maybe it was because they were old and tuckerd out, maybe because they were too tight. In places like Panama they (mine) just were not reliable enough for me to want to keep the darn thing. I ended up with a M16A1 made by GM Hydramatic division. Thar gun would not jam as long as I only used the magazines I had tested and collected.
In my last branch, we obtained and re-issued M-14s with a bunch of aftermarket parts and stocks we ordered via the impact card system. Most were obtained from the Navy storage depots. They really take care of things....
Those scoped M-14s all worked well when deployed as marksman rifles for Air Base defense.
We also wrote up a reasonably worded request for some M-79s. Which the old Navy Depots still had tucked away. We told the Air Force that they would be better for pinpoint engagements, and the application of gas canisters through small windows and doors. Thus reducing the likelihood of collateral damage or excessive causalities. The Air Force can't pass up a nicely worded memo, so We actually managed to get 8 m-79s for our unit..on a sort of long term lend basis.
I have also owned 4 Springfield Armory M-1As,(plus a Beretta BM-59) and only one, (the Super Match) had anything close to the quality of a real M-14.
It was only usable on full auto if you managed to wrap the forward part of the sling around something like a fence post, small tree or bush. Somebody had the bright idea that the auto-capable M-14s should fire while the M60 gunner was changing belts or barrels. They did not sound similar in their rates of fire so I am sure it did not fool anyone.
Later when I was in a reserve Army LRSU det we had some M-21s. They were prone to malfunction. Maybe it was because they were old and tuckerd out, maybe because they were too tight. In places like Panama they (mine) just were not reliable enough for me to want to keep the darn thing. I ended up with a M16A1 made by GM Hydramatic division. Thar gun would not jam as long as I only used the magazines I had tested and collected.
In my last branch, we obtained and re-issued M-14s with a bunch of aftermarket parts and stocks we ordered via the impact card system. Most were obtained from the Navy storage depots. They really take care of things....
Those scoped M-14s all worked well when deployed as marksman rifles for Air Base defense.
We also wrote up a reasonably worded request for some M-79s. Which the old Navy Depots still had tucked away. We told the Air Force that they would be better for pinpoint engagements, and the application of gas canisters through small windows and doors. Thus reducing the likelihood of collateral damage or excessive causalities. The Air Force can't pass up a nicely worded memo, so We actually managed to get 8 m-79s for our unit..on a sort of long term lend basis.
I have also owned 4 Springfield Armory M-1As,(plus a Beretta BM-59) and only one, (the Super Match) had anything close to the quality of a real M-14.
- Status
