Sad realization about M1A's...

[glockman19]

I have no problems with any of the info you present. I only shoot Factory 7.62 NATO ammo. I'll be getting a national match and SOCOM to add to my M1A collection.

I'm a believer

 

[cracked butt]

10) 211+ quality assurance testing fixtures, 400+ manufacturing steps, all based on M1 fixtures and jigs, to produce a rifle design that was/is flawed from the beginning.

The M14 required complete retooling from the M1 production equipment. Even at that, between Springfield and Winchester a new M1 garand was produced every 30 seconds or so on average during WWII. How they did it might not fit today's concept of 'lean manufacturing' but somehow the job got done. Pressing tin cans into receivers for sturmgewehr style rifles might have been able to cut production steps in half/ but why bother when the machinery and tooling was available and skilled labor was still cheap enough to build a high quality product?

 

[telomerase]

at the end of the day its the Indian that counts and not the arrows.

At the end of the day it was the Gatling gun and not the Indian. Unless you think that cavalrymen were the cream of European humanity, and the Nez Perce were a bunch of untermensch.

And here we are discussing which bow and arrow to hang on the wall... M1A, FAL, whatever... they're all weapons from the middle of the last century.

 

[cracked butt]

At the end of the day it was the Gatling gun and not the Indian. Unless you think that cavalrymen were the cream of European humanity, and the Nez Perce were a bunch of untermensch.

There are always exceptions to rules.

 

[TexasRifleman]

At the end of the day it was the Gatling gun and not the Indian.

At the end of the day it was the Indians and tax free casinos not the Gatling Gun.

 

[MassMark]

For a rifle from "the middle of the last century", the M14 sure is hanging tough. Consider that Fulton Armory is ramping up production of MK14 Model O and shippping them directly to the sandbox, Troy is creating a truly modular weapon system with - you guessed it - the M14 as the foundation of the platform, (Troy MCS) and Ron Smith is doing the same with Crazy Horse M14 rifles built on LRB receivers. CMI, (Checkmate Industries) is churning out M14 mags at a fever pitch and is producing true USGI issue magazines. Also consider that CMP has recalled all lease M-14 rifles nationwide. More Clinton torch-cutting? Don't think so. Look for a M-14 CMP gun fitted into a Troy MCS coming soon to the Airborne unit near you...Why not the AR-10? FAL? G3? FNSCAR? there certainly are plenty of them...Hmmm.... For a 50-year old rifle, the M-14 is certainly proving itself to be on par, (or better) than most rifles in the field today....

By the way, as stated before, glass bedding is for match rifles and is giving way to steel bedding and tension bedding, (i.e: SAGE, JAE and Troy MCS).

Lastly, with 5,000 rounds downtown and minimal cleaning in the last year, my Springfeld Armory M1A SOCOM has been spot-on flawless...

 

[rockstar.esq]

So first off I'll reiterate that ALL the basis for my points came from Scott Duffs book and my personal experience shooting a friends M1A.

I have tremendous affection for rifles commonly used for "Designated marksman" use because for the most part they strike me as reliable, effective, and accurate enough for nearly all purposes. As such the M1A (the only type I'll ever be allowed to own) is one of the few American made military rifles.

So since my comments about the slamfire possibility seem to have stirred the pot somewhat I'll address that first.
It seems like the danger it presents are getting ignored. Further the repeated contention that "hard" primers being the only acceptable solution is obtuse when the original engineering of the rifle could have addressed this in other ways. Perhaps learning from the SKS shortcomings as I posited earlier. Anything that prevents the soldiers gun from killing/injuring that soldier should merit as a positive attribute for any "Battle rifle".

AK103K, thanks for giving some personal evidence regarding the danger of slamfire.

The gas system comment has more to do with reliability and versatility than anything else. Unlike nearly everyone who's posted thus far I've found military ammo to be inconsistent and dirty. By incorporating an adjustment valve (like the FAL) the operator can ensure that the gun cycles properly even when dirty. Further it allows the operator to adjust the system to prevent battering the action. Given the mechanical simplicity of this option, it seems like a pretty reasonable beef to have with it. Again this would make it a true "product improved" M1 Garand as was it's intention.

By the way Winchester launched the .308 Winchester BEFORE NATO approved the 7.62x51.


bofe954 - "Quit reading so much and shoot more."
My friend and neighbor bought a Fulton Armory National Match M1A very recently. I've shot it personally and everything I've posted about was a result of that experience and an owners manual written about the M1A.
I send 10K+ rounds downrange annually - I shoot plenty thanks for asking. Ridicule for asking about what I've read isn't helpful nor does it cast you in good light.

I'm glad to hear that there are some THR M1A reloaders to refute Mr. Duffs contention. Three to ten reloads per brass is reasonable, Duff made it sound like the first firing through the M1A ruptured the case head on several brands of brass. Glad I asked!

If the accuracy reputation of the M1A was possible with an unbedded M1A I wouldn't have added the bedding comments. Since they are, I included them. Further I don't do battle, nor do I feel compelled to limit the use of a rifle to some esoteric list of qualities only clear to elitists.

I'm still amazed that several posts claim that bedding that degrades from solvent contact is OK when we've had JB Weld since 1968. If bedding is only an accuracy/ match grade thing, it would seem screamingly obvious to me that making the bedding out of something thats solvent resistant is a good idea. Sort of like making your car's paint resistant to gasoline so that you don't have a section of bare metal below the gas tank fuel port.

Cracked Butt: As it was my understanding that the 30-06 loading of 1906 utilized powders that were greatly improved by the advent of the 7.62x51 (circa 1956) I made that the basis of my assertion. Granted, the 30-06 military ammo of 1942 wasn't likely made with the same type of powder as the 1906 loads, the thrust of my point remains that the .308 benefited from said powder development.

Thank you all for posting!

 

[Onmilo]

All has been covered in previous posts yet I feel compelled to add that the M14 was not originally designed as a Match rifle, it was designed as a combat rifle using very consistent lots of ammunition removing the need for a gas regulator.

Good standard bedding will last much longer than 1000 rounds.
If the shooter decides to refresh the bedding after 1000 rounds it is because he is attempting to maintain an accuracy edge that may help him win a competition.

Good steel bedding will last over 5000 firing cycles and that is with the shooter removing and replacing the action repeatedly.

Fiberglass stocks are comparable to any and all of the modern stocks and in most cased are far more durable than a rifle using a two piece design of stock and seperate handguard.

When using correctly dimension ammunition in an M14 type rifle that features a correctly dimensioned receiver bridge and properly dimension and unbroken firing pin extension precludes any possibility of a slam fire even when the weapon is fired on full automatic setting.

 

[zinj]

Cracked Butt: As it was my understanding that the 30-06 loading of 1906 utilized powders that were greatly improved by the advent of the 7.62x51 (circa 1956) I made that the basis of my assertion. Granted, the 30-06 military ammo of 1942 wasn't likely made with the same type of powder as the 1906 loads, the thrust of my point remains that the .308 benefited from said powder development.

A bit of a tangent, but wasn't M2 ammunition originally designed to allow rifle ranges with shorter backstops, and this was accomplished by a reduced loading?

Of course that still leaves the question of why the Garand was designed for M2 .30-06 rather than the more potent M1.

 

[Zullo74]

rockstar.esq,
Your comment about the M14 gas system is ill-informed! It DOES NOT batter the rifle at all. It is designed as an expansion and cutoff system. Here is a quote from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as15-e.htm

"The M14 is a gas operated, magazine fed, selective fire (originally) design. The gas system is located under the barrel, and has a short stroke (about 1 1/2 inch - 37 mm) gas piston which operates the M1 Garand style action rod. The gas system features an automatic gas cutoff feature, which limits the amount of gases used to operate the weapon."

It accomplishes this by having an internal expansion chamber in the front of the piston that can only hold as much gas volume as is needed to move the piston aft. When it moves completely aft, a vent hole in the piston lines up with a vent hole in the gas cylinder and any gas pressure that is not needed is vented overboard. Simple, yet elegant! You really should get yourself better informed.

 

[Zullo74]

zinj,

The development of M2 Ball ammo had to do with the fact that M1 Ball ammo was battering the Garand op rods. It had nothing to do with shorter range backstops. The 150 grain bullet used in M2 Ball ammo is just perfect for Garands, as they do not have a gas vent system as the M14 has.

 

[Telperion]

So first off I'll reiterate that ALL the basis for my points came from Scott Duffs book and my personal experience shooting a friends M1A.

Are we reading the same Scott Duff? Where does he say that brass can't be reloaded? Where does he say the rifle isn't designed to prevent slamfires? Every U.S. rifle since the M1 has used a floating firing pin. I do not hear the same complaints about the M16, and people sure do love to whine about that gun. Scott Duff has never heard of an Otis kit, so that means an M14 can't be cleaned breach-to-muzzle?

The gas system comment has more to do with reliability and versatility than anything else. Unlike nearly everyone who's posted thus far I've found military ammo to be inconsistent and dirty. By incorporating an adjustment valve (like the FAL) the operator can ensure that the gun cycles properly even when dirty. Further it allows the operator to adjust the system to prevent battering the action. Given the mechanical simplicity of this option, it seems like a pretty reasonable beef to have with it. Again this would make it a true "product improved" M1 Garand as was it's intention.

The lack of an adjustable gas system makes perfect sense for a military that has standardized its ammunition manufacturing. Why put a knob on a rifle so some knucklehead private can render his rifle a straight-pull bolt action? Aftermarket adjustable gas nuts are available for the M14. If you want to shoot various commercial ammo, use one.

 

[Dienekes]

If the M14/M1A was a cartoon character from the past, it would say "I yam what I yam."

Which is a pretty darned good .30 caliber battle rifle that has, on balance, a lot more plusses than minuses any day of the week. And turned in some impressive performances on the range as well. Some days it even makes me look good.

Oh, well, at least Duff didn't call it a "terrorist rifle".

I'd better go down to the safe and give mine a hug in case it got hurt feelings from all the badmouthing.

 

[zinj]

The development of M2 Ball ammo had to do with the fact that M1 Ball ammo was battering the Garand op rods. It had nothing to do with shorter range backstops. The 150 grain bullet used in M2 Ball ammo is just perfect for Garands, as they do not have a gas vent system as the M14 has.

I am looking into this and the story seems to be very consistent that M2 Ball was meant to duplicated the ballisitics of the original 1906 ammunition, for which the ranges were designed. Both loads use a flat-based bullet, rather than the boat-tail used in M1 Ball.

 

[gezzer]

Neat!! Finally, the original poster realizes the truth, .gov put in the fix to get the M14. The FAL was sabotaged in testing so the US could get one of its shortest term rifle ever made. (Reason not designed here)

The so called Springfield Armory M1A1 the company tries to riley on the .gov Springfield Armory reputation is a sad replacement in the long run. They have problems on customer service and quality control. (This will enrage owners/disciples) As much as I have tried to like them after 2-3 trips back to the factory I will nor recommended them.

I love my Garand and wish the M1A were as nice, until they are I will stick with my own built FAL’s

 

[rockstar.esq]

Zullo74 You are the first to offer an explanation about the gas system. Scott Duffs book; The M14 Owners Guide and Match Conditioning Instructions states on pg 106 "Slow burning powder will spike gas port pressures. Fast burning powder will increase chamber pressures, exacerbating the brass problems mentioned." I surmised that since the chamber pressure spikes causing "brass problems" described on pg 106 specifically in the phrase "The most frequent failure is case head separation." would thereby indicate that the absence of a gas regulation system was the cause of these problems. Add to that the excessive force required to rip case heads off can be interpreted as bolt velocities well within the envelope of those causing battering.

So I stand corrected in that there is a gas regulating system.

Still doesn't explain why Duff claims case head separation is the single most frequent failure from firing commercial ammo in the M1A.

Asking about what I've read is one process of "getting myself informed".

Telperion page 104 " The M14 was not designed to be fired with reloaded ammunition. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that you do not use reloads."

He doesn't state that the M14/ M1A wasn't designed to prevent slamfires, he repeatedly states that the ONLY WAY TO PREVENT THEM IS WITH HARD BELOW FLUSH PRIMERS. So the only "designed" aspect to prevent slamfires is not intrinsic to the rifles design. Please read the earlier post by AK103K to further illustrate the point.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

By the way Winchester launched the .308 Winchester BEFORE NATO approved the 7.62x51.

I think you're on the money with that.

 

[Telperion]

Telperion page 104 " The M14 was not designed to be fired with reloaded ammunition. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that you do not use reloads."

He doesn't state that the M14/ M1A wasn't designed to prevent slamfires, he repeatedly states that the ONLY WAY TO PREVENT THEM IS WITH HARD BELOW FLUSH PRIMERS. So the only "designed" aspect to prevent slamfires is not intrinsic to the rifles design. Please read the earlier post by AK103K to further illustrate the point.

Well on page 104 I note the principal author of that section is Clint McKee and not Scott Duff.

Clint is entitled to his opinion, and you can read more of his thoughts on the woe that will befall you if you reload:
http://www.fulton-armory.com/ReloadingThoughts.htm
Suffice it to say, thousands of competitive shooters have reloaded for the M14 and M16/AR-15 safely and I don't think he has the most credibility on the subject.

Edit to add: I note that Clint adds, "NATO specification Israeli, Portuguese, Venezuelan, German, and USGI ammunition are all excellent, and usually relatively inexpensive when purchased by the case." My, have times changed! I suppose one has the luxury of discouraging reloading when surplus ammo is available for cheap, on demand.

 

[Jacka L Ope]

He doesn't state that the M14/ M1A wasn't designed to prevent slamfires, he repeatedly states that the ONLY WAY TO PREVENT THEM IS WITH HARD BELOW FLUSH PRIMERS. So the only "designed" aspect to prevent slamfires is not intrinsic to the rifles design. Please read the earlier post by AK103K to further illustrate the point.

Given a rifle with a receiver and/or parts not worn well beyond design specification and using ammunition as specified, there are no slamfires to "prevent".

Owners and their improperly handloaded ammunition - that's a different ballgame.

Again, if you don't like the design, don't buy it. Otherwise, perhaps write to the manufacturers with your concerns. They've been addressed here.

 

[rockstar.esq]

Telperion: The heading does indeed list "Clint McKee with Scott A. Duff and John M. Miller. I clearly quoted the primary author of the book and should these passages be primarily/ entirely Mr. McKee's work I stand corrected. Again I cited where I got it from, and posted here to determine how much weight it carries. There are certainly reloadophobes out there and I accept that some get more press than they are due. Where I feel a significant issue remains is that the rifle has a documented history of blowing up because of high primers. Something that many/most rifles don't do. Something being outright unsafe unless all primers are countersunk doesn't bode well. Not being well informed on the M16 I can't explain why it doesn't have similar problems to the M1A. All of this misses the greater point which is that the unsafe design continues to be manufactured when corrections can and should be made. For crying out loud theres a guy making firing pins for SKS's that prevent this condition and he's only charging $3.00 for them!

 

[marksman13]

Pardon my ignorance, and I know they are expensive, but wouldn't a SAGE stock fix the problem of having the rifle bedded? I could be wrong. I'm definately not an expert, but many, many designated marksmen are using these stocks very effectively.

 

[VA27]

Hmmm...A friend of mine blew up an AR15, shooting GI ammo. Of course, the ammo company didn't replace the gun.

I was standing about 20 feet behind a guy when he blew up a Mini14 (AC556) with new commercial ball ammo. The ammo company DID replace the gun.

My agency has had about 120 M14s in the field for over 10 years now...all shooting commercial reloads for practice and new commercial ammo for training...nope, we haven't blown up a single one.

I hope this helps.

 

[General Geoff]

Bottom line: If you believe the "shortcomings" you listed are a problem, then don't use an M14 or M1A.


My M1A is the best rifle I've ever owned, and most likely ever will own. It's never jammed, slam-fired, failed to fire, or had any part or piece break. I know it's anectodal, but that speaks far louder than any words written on the subject by some guy I've never met.

 

[Grump]

The M14's gas system is designed to work, WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT, with port pressures of 12,500 PSI, +/- 2500 PSI.

Can you tell me what the FAL is designed for and will work with? I don't know the port pressures, but with light reloads it ate loads that choked an FAL. The Frog-gun wouldn't cycle below about 2000 fps or so, but the M1A with USGI components went down to 1600 fps.

Full-power loads are NOT battering my receiver, either.

I've never had a bore solvent or oil soften my bedding. Choose the right epoxy and mix it right.

I'm reloading commercial brass with no problem.

The only way to produce a "slam-fire" on demand is with a high primer backed up with spherical powder in the primer pocket. During the heyday of slam-fires in NRA highpower matches, it required a combination of a short SAAMI "match" chamber, full-length or "long" USGI ammo, and loading a round in the chamber with a full-speed bolt slam. There is also some suspicion that excessively worn firing pin tang/receiver bridge camming surfaces also played a role.

And in fact, the design of the Garand was changed to prevent slam-fires. Check out EClancy's posts. The firing pin was reduced in weight. The M14 firing pin is even lighter.

The hammer and punch is needed for ONLY for the first disassembly after installing the bedding. After that, just an upsidedown rap of the heel on a padded surface and you're good.

I've never seen an M14-type rip a caserim off. HAVE seen the remains left behind by an HK 91 type. It was brutal, and with factory NATO surplus! On the other hand, the times I have fired over-sized 3x reloads in and M1A to the point of case breakage (at about the same point as the M852 cannelure), and 19 out of 20 just ejected BOTH pieces of the brass.

Can your FAL or HK 91 do that?

IF the slamfire is caused by a broken/stuck forward firing pin, NO design can prevent the unlocked bolt "problem" you cite from Duff.

The M14 type is also easier to clear from stoppages which involve the bolt stuck anywhere other than fully forward. One of those case breakages DID leave the forward part of the case in the chamber, and the next round fed into it and was solidly jammed. The new uber-long cartridge "unit" was too long to eject before the bolt was all the way to the rear, but I could get to the extractor and pop it off, then wiggle everything around to pull the bolt and clear the way. Couldn't do that with an M16 type or FAL or anything that uses that stupid bold cycle parts extending into the buttstock design.

Don't believe everything you read. Shoot one with a variety of loads and see what happens.

 

[BADUNAME13]

You're right. They suck.
Leave the M1A's and .308 ammo for me.