Sad realization about M1A's...
- Thread starter rockstar.esq
- Start date
- Status
JShirley;
I see your point about the M-14 vs. the SR-25. Keep in mind, though, that the original contract for the M-14 in 1959 was for $68.75 per rifle. Adjusting for inflation, that's $477.43 in 2006 dollars.
Now, imagine you had a maker bid to build SR-25s to hit that price point. Would the SR-25 perform any better than a rack grade M-14? From the other perspective, how does a $2500 M-14 (Smith Enterprises Crazy Horse or comparable) compare to an SR-25 in the sandbox? I'm interested to know to your opinion and observations from the front.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your service. I appreciate your first hand observations.
-John
I see your point about the M-14 vs. the SR-25. Keep in mind, though, that the original contract for the M-14 in 1959 was for $68.75 per rifle. Adjusting for inflation, that's $477.43 in 2006 dollars.
Now, imagine you had a maker bid to build SR-25s to hit that price point. Would the SR-25 perform any better than a rack grade M-14? From the other perspective, how does a $2500 M-14 (Smith Enterprises Crazy Horse or comparable) compare to an SR-25 in the sandbox? I'm interested to know to your opinion and observations from the front.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your service. I appreciate your first hand observations.
-John
John,
In all honesty, I really don't know what quality a $500 7.62 AR would have. I do know that various shooters whom I respect, who own M1As and fire lots of rounds, describe problems keeping them very accurate. (These people typically LIKE the M14/1A, and regret they aren't better for accurate work without heavy amounts of maintenance.)
For some reason, most AR-15 and M16-type rifles seem to be quite accurate. I am less sure how accurate 7.62 versions of these rifles are.
I'll see if I can get a chance for more direct comparison of an accurized M14 vs the Knight's, John.
John
In all honesty, I really don't know what quality a $500 7.62 AR would have. I do know that various shooters whom I respect, who own M1As and fire lots of rounds, describe problems keeping them very accurate. (These people typically LIKE the M14/1A, and regret they aren't better for accurate work without heavy amounts of maintenance.)
For some reason, most AR-15 and M16-type rifles seem to be quite accurate. I am less sure how accurate 7.62 versions of these rifles are.
I'll see if I can get a chance for more direct comparison of an accurized M14 vs the Knight's, John.
John
tailfeathers
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 11
RE: Sad realization about M1A's... Reply to Thread
Holy cow...where do I start...How about...What a load of crap...This is the observations of someone completely ignorant to this fine rifle...Almost none of what you wrote is accurate...1...I shot an M1A at Camp perry for 8 years with several thousand other M1A shooters with as far as I know >0< slam fires...2...You adjust ammo to the system...3 ammo was designed for the rifle not the other way around...4...bedding isn't necessary for 1.5 minute of angle...5...so what...who cares what end you clean it from...6...screw the bedding...7...mine never so much as scratched the brass and all I ever used were reloads...8...1 MOA is better than most men can shoot within a National match course...9...You do not field strip a bedded rifle...it stays together forever or until it shoots loose...10...A bunch of nonsense...You need to get out of the house more...I have thousands of rounds down range from an M1A...Not >1< failure to fire or function in 8+ years at Camp Perry...
Gary
So I've just read Scott A. Duff's book on the M1A. There are a few things I've learned about them that lead me to be very dissapointed with it as a whole. Please note that I am drawing the following from that singular reference.
1) The gun wasn't designed to prevent slamfires. (The SKS has similar problems but it's a MUCH older design, the US military knew about the problem and didn't try to fix it)
2) The gun wasn't designed to contain slamfires to a closed bolt position. (Potentially fatal to shooter)
3) The gas system is not adjustable to accomodate different powder charges and bullet weights. (batters the gun to death with commercial ammo)
4) The bedding material is only rated to last for 1000 rounds maximum. (1 year for average match shooter)
5) The barrel must be cleaned from the muzzle. (Much harder than it needs to be)
6) Bore solvents supposedly deteriorate the bedding. (Seriously stupid)
7) The ejection system batters brass so hard that reloads aren't realistic. (Annoying but common enough among all military semiauto rifles)
8) One MOA is considered the pinnacle of accuracy from this platform. (Depressing considering the folklore about how amazing it is)
9) Well bedded rifles require a hammer and a brass drift punch to field strip. (Again, annoying but "match" stuff is generally a PITA to disassemble)
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.
After my reading I've come to identify the two main reasons for the record of accuracy associated with the M1A. The first is the sights. Without a doubt the iron sights on the M1A are superb. The second is the ammunition. The 7.62x51 was/is loaded to a much higher level of quality and consistency than the 30-06 was for non match ammo. The powder advances no doubt play a huge role here. If I'm wrong about my conclusions I'd love to hear arguements against them. I'd really like to believe that the M1A was/is the finest rifle the US military has ever fielded but I need to see some evidence to disprove my earlier contentions.
Holy cow...where do I start...How about...What a load of crap...This is the observations of someone completely ignorant to this fine rifle...Almost none of what you wrote is accurate...1...I shot an M1A at Camp perry for 8 years with several thousand other M1A shooters with as far as I know >0< slam fires...2...You adjust ammo to the system...3 ammo was designed for the rifle not the other way around...4...bedding isn't necessary for 1.5 minute of angle...5...so what...who cares what end you clean it from...6...screw the bedding...7...mine never so much as scratched the brass and all I ever used were reloads...8...1 MOA is better than most men can shoot within a National match course...9...You do not field strip a bedded rifle...it stays together forever or until it shoots loose...10...A bunch of nonsense...You need to get out of the house more...I have thousands of rounds down range from an M1A...Not >1< failure to fire or function in 8+ years at Camp Perry...
Gary
So I've just read Scott A. Duff's book on the M1A. There are a few things I've learned about them that lead me to be very dissapointed with it as a whole. Please note that I am drawing the following from that singular reference.
1) The gun wasn't designed to prevent slamfires. (The SKS has similar problems but it's a MUCH older design, the US military knew about the problem and didn't try to fix it)
2) The gun wasn't designed to contain slamfires to a closed bolt position. (Potentially fatal to shooter)
3) The gas system is not adjustable to accomodate different powder charges and bullet weights. (batters the gun to death with commercial ammo)
4) The bedding material is only rated to last for 1000 rounds maximum. (1 year for average match shooter)
5) The barrel must be cleaned from the muzzle. (Much harder than it needs to be)
6) Bore solvents supposedly deteriorate the bedding. (Seriously stupid)
7) The ejection system batters brass so hard that reloads aren't realistic. (Annoying but common enough among all military semiauto rifles)
8) One MOA is considered the pinnacle of accuracy from this platform. (Depressing considering the folklore about how amazing it is)
9) Well bedded rifles require a hammer and a brass drift punch to field strip. (Again, annoying but "match" stuff is generally a PITA to disassemble)
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.
After my reading I've come to identify the two main reasons for the record of accuracy associated with the M1A. The first is the sights. Without a doubt the iron sights on the M1A are superb. The second is the ammunition. The 7.62x51 was/is loaded to a much higher level of quality and consistency than the 30-06 was for non match ammo. The powder advances no doubt play a huge role here. If I'm wrong about my conclusions I'd love to hear arguements against them. I'd really like to believe that the M1A was/is the finest rifle the US military has ever fielded but I need to see some evidence to disprove my earlier contentions.
rockstar.esq
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,475
Tailfeathers: It seems as though you simply read my first post, ignored the 127 other posts that include others I authored along the way. If such is the case it stands to reason that you're unaware/ unconcerned with the actual purpose of my post.
"This is the observations of someone completely ignorant to this fine rifle...Almost none of what you wrote is accurate.."
Perhaps you're inclined to ignore that I was and have been asking THR members to relate their experience to confirm or contradict the assertions I made as a result from reading a book AND SHOOTING AN M1A! Ragging on me for asking folks with more experience than I have to determine the truth about something doesn't embody a sage voice of reason. More to the point, your comment "You need to get out of the house more." pretty much spotlights your unwarranted aggressive tone. If you'd read the preceding posts you would have noted that AK103K posted about how a slamfire nearly killed the shooter. Sure it didn't happen to you, that isn't proof that it can't. Just so you know, out of battery slamfires have been pretty thoroughly discussed up to this point and it seems that it's a pretty rare occurrence. For that matter several other points have been made, all of which precede your post by a good 75 replies. Most of which were made in a respectful manner.
"This is the observations of someone completely ignorant to this fine rifle...Almost none of what you wrote is accurate.."
Perhaps you're inclined to ignore that I was and have been asking THR members to relate their experience to confirm or contradict the assertions I made as a result from reading a book AND SHOOTING AN M1A! Ragging on me for asking folks with more experience than I have to determine the truth about something doesn't embody a sage voice of reason. More to the point, your comment "You need to get out of the house more." pretty much spotlights your unwarranted aggressive tone. If you'd read the preceding posts you would have noted that AK103K posted about how a slamfire nearly killed the shooter. Sure it didn't happen to you, that isn't proof that it can't. Just so you know, out of battery slamfires have been pretty thoroughly discussed up to this point and it seems that it's a pretty rare occurrence. For that matter several other points have been made, all of which precede your post by a good 75 replies. Most of which were made in a respectful manner.
emitt1
Member
I just picked up on the thread and was shocked to say the least. I must agree with 30Cal and RecoilRob (nice job guys) and say I've placed many rounds down range with my M1A and have never had a single problem. Using the correct primers (as many have said before) will solve the 'so called' slam-fire problems. Proper care is all this fine battle rifle needs and it will serve its propose well.
RecoilRob
Member
AK103K..
What can we do about factory or GI issue ammo? Maybe cross our fingers and hope that the Gun Gods are smiling on us today?
Seriously, (not that keeping in the Good Graces of the Gun Gods is not a viable stategy) I think that maintaining the rifle properly and inspecting the ammo for obvious flaws (high primers) is about all we mortals CAN do.
As has been discussed, the M1A design will not allow the firing pin to contact the primer until the bolt is sufficiently locked to be safe if it should inadvertantly discharge. That is a good thing.
A round that goes BANG before the FP strikes the primer just from the impact of the bolt chambering it (aside from the aforementioned high primer) is something that happens rarely but is the risk we take as shooters and is there each and every time we pull the trigger.
I'd like to hear about other rifle designs that accomodate this rare but catastrophic event better than the M1A. I can't think of any that would not blow up. I can't think of anything we can do but inspect the ammo and rifle and then concentrate on hitting our target.
Anything bad that happens afterward is Providence and maybe out of our control.
Oh, and may I say Welcome to Tailfeathers! We here at THR are a different lot than any you might have experienced on the Web. Much, MUCH experience and, while we have disagreements on things, it is (and should be) done with respect and civility. Your initial post was a bit strong. Relax and ease up a bit and you will have a nice experience here.
What can we do about factory or GI issue ammo? Maybe cross our fingers and hope that the Gun Gods are smiling on us today?
Seriously, (not that keeping in the Good Graces of the Gun Gods is not a viable stategy) I think that maintaining the rifle properly and inspecting the ammo for obvious flaws (high primers) is about all we mortals CAN do.
As has been discussed, the M1A design will not allow the firing pin to contact the primer until the bolt is sufficiently locked to be safe if it should inadvertantly discharge. That is a good thing.
A round that goes BANG before the FP strikes the primer just from the impact of the bolt chambering it (aside from the aforementioned high primer) is something that happens rarely but is the risk we take as shooters and is there each and every time we pull the trigger.
I'd like to hear about other rifle designs that accomodate this rare but catastrophic event better than the M1A. I can't think of any that would not blow up. I can't think of anything we can do but inspect the ammo and rifle and then concentrate on hitting our target.
Anything bad that happens afterward is Providence and maybe out of our control.
Oh, and may I say Welcome to Tailfeathers! We here at THR are a different lot than any you might have experienced on the Web. Much, MUCH experience and, while we have disagreements on things, it is (and should be) done with respect and civility. Your initial post was a bit strong. Relax and ease up a bit and you will have a nice experience here.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
My point about the factory/GI ammo was that it wasnt just reloads. I agree, the slam fire thing isnt a common occurrence, especially with GI, but they do occur and I'm not the only one to have had it happen.
I dont know if its because the M1/M1A are more prevalent here or what, but when you hear "slam fire", they tend to be the rifles it happened to. I cant ever remember hearing of catastrophic failures occurring due to a slam fire in HK's or FAL's or even AK's, and the one I'm always waiting to hear about with all the bump firing going on these days. I know there have been some reported issues with the AR's, dont know that slam fire was the issue though. Hey, anything can and sometimes do blow up, but I'd be willing to bet that most are usually due to user error. Then again, Providence can be a very nasty female dog on occasion.
Your right about the risk, and actually, more like the lack there of if your reasonably careful. At this point in my life and who knows how many rounds down range I've only had a couple of incidents that drew blood, splash back at indoor ranges and one load of bird shot in the shins being the others. I'm leaving out foolishness as a kid and things that go boom, thats a whole other category!
I dont know if its because the M1/M1A are more prevalent here or what, but when you hear "slam fire", they tend to be the rifles it happened to. I cant ever remember hearing of catastrophic failures occurring due to a slam fire in HK's or FAL's or even AK's, and the one I'm always waiting to hear about with all the bump firing going on these days. I know there have been some reported issues with the AR's, dont know that slam fire was the issue though. Hey, anything can and sometimes do blow up, but I'd be willing to bet that most are usually due to user error. Then again, Providence can be a very nasty female dog on occasion.
Your right about the risk, and actually, more like the lack there of if your reasonably careful. At this point in my life and who knows how many rounds down range I've only had a couple of incidents that drew blood, splash back at indoor ranges and one load of bird shot in the shins being the others. I'm leaving out foolishness as a kid and things that go boom, thats a whole other category!
Of course the M14 and Garand tend to be the one's that are associated with "slam fires". The reason is simple. The Garand and M14s are the guns that until most recently dominated the competitive shooting circles for 40 years before the AR took over as top dog. As I said before, the whole single loading thing for the slow fire stages of competition is something that neither the Garand nor the M14 was designed to do. They are combat rifles designed to fire semi automatically from a magazine, or in the case of the M1 from an en bloc clip until the gun is empty.
When you factor in how many Garands and M14s there are, and how many clueless shooters there are that think it's ok to pull the op rod to the rear and slam it home on a cartridge that has been single loaded in the chamber, it's amazing there aren't more problems.
You don't hear of similar problems with the HK and FAL because there aren't too many folks that have ever bothered trying to make them into competition rifles where single loading would even be an issue.
When you factor in how many Garands and M14s there are, and how many clueless shooters there are that think it's ok to pull the op rod to the rear and slam it home on a cartridge that has been single loaded in the chamber, it's amazing there aren't more problems.
You don't hear of similar problems with the HK and FAL because there aren't too many folks that have ever bothered trying to make them into competition rifles where single loading would even be an issue.
MGKelly
Member
Back in the early 70's I was issued a Winchester built M14, wood stock and all of the standard amenities. I was able to score Expert with this weapon and had zero malfunctions (except for a dented magazine - not the rifles fault). Every rifle now seems to be purpose built to some extent and may not do all jobs perfectly, this is true of the M14/M1A also. There has also been some spirited debate about shooting comercial .308 in the 7.62 chamber, bent op rods and the like, but I have never seen any proof first hand or pictures of such (I am not claiming it does not happen; just that it's not a prevailent as some claim). I believe that as a bonified MBR the M14 fits the bill very well, but as a CQB weapon not so much. Too much cartridge power, recoil, and muzzle blast. AK's and M4's are a much better choice for door busting house to house fighting. The point I'm trying to make is every tool has a specific use and the same is true of firearms.
The comment was made about the SKS slam fire issue, when I inspected the bolt of my Yugo M66 the firing pin channel was very rough (looked like it was drilled by a 5 yr old with a very worn drill!) and would cause the pin to stick at various and random times. After very carefully reaming and honeing the channel I have had no slam fire problems since (although the return spring idea still looks like a good saftey addition in my mind). So even the manufacturing process can play a big part in a rifles popularity.
I have seen Romainian WASR 10's that shoot very well (I own one) and others (Bulgarian, Polish, Egyptian, etc.) that were absolute junk. No weapon is "Perfect" as is out of the box, some times a few personal modifications and machining is all it takes to make the weapon more task appropriate.
In my opinion, as far as a good rifle that is acurate and can deliver a healthy amount of fire power accurately is always a good thing and that is why the M14/M1A series will always be at the top of my list. (now if they could only do something about the price issue...)
One last thing; learn every thing there is to know about your choice of weapon, and become well practiced with it and you will always out shoot any one with some "Uber-Rifle" that they only shoot casually now and then.
And yeah, I almost cried when "Slick Willie" ordered all those M14's destroyed!
MG
The comment was made about the SKS slam fire issue, when I inspected the bolt of my Yugo M66 the firing pin channel was very rough (looked like it was drilled by a 5 yr old with a very worn drill!) and would cause the pin to stick at various and random times. After very carefully reaming and honeing the channel I have had no slam fire problems since (although the return spring idea still looks like a good saftey addition in my mind). So even the manufacturing process can play a big part in a rifles popularity.
I have seen Romainian WASR 10's that shoot very well (I own one) and others (Bulgarian, Polish, Egyptian, etc.) that were absolute junk. No weapon is "Perfect" as is out of the box, some times a few personal modifications and machining is all it takes to make the weapon more task appropriate.
In my opinion, as far as a good rifle that is acurate and can deliver a healthy amount of fire power accurately is always a good thing and that is why the M14/M1A series will always be at the top of my list. (now if they could only do something about the price issue...)
One last thing; learn every thing there is to know about your choice of weapon, and become well practiced with it and you will always out shoot any one with some "Uber-Rifle" that they only shoot casually now and then.
And yeah, I almost cried when "Slick Willie" ordered all those M14's destroyed!
MG
glockman19
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,700
MGKelly,
I ageree I love my M1A and believe it serves it's purpose well.
Thanks
I ageree I love my M1A and believe it serves it's purpose well.
Thanks
tailfeathers
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 11
Sad realization about M1A's... Reply to Thread
It wasn't my intention to offend anyone but the original post wasn't even close to being in the form of a question. And you used the word...con·clu·sion...
1-the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.
2-final decision: The judge has reached his conclusion.
and as·ser·tion...
1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion...
Well so much for this evenings english lesson...Not to mention the title of the thread...Sad realization about M1A's...Those kind of words would normally come from someone that has at least used a product extensively to be able to have some authority behind his opinion...I was just shocked by what I thought to be misleading information...No biggie...Don't guess you will introduce me to your sister now huh?...:>) Getting out of the house is a euphemism for experience...Its not a tone...sorry...
Gary
Tailfeathers: It seems as though you simply read my first post, ignored the 127 other posts that include others I authored along the way. If such is the case it stands to reason that you're unaware/ unconcerned with the actual purpose of my post.
"This is the observations of someone completely ignorant to this fine rifle...Almost none of what you wrote is accurate.."
Perhaps you're inclined to ignore that I was and have been asking THR members to relate their experience to confirm or contradict the assertions I made as a result from reading a book AND SHOOTING AN M1A! Ragging on me for asking folks with more experience than I have to determine the truth about something doesn't embody a sage voice of reason. More to the point, your comment "You need to get out of the house more." pretty much spotlights your unwarranted aggressive tone. If you'd read the preceding posts you would have noted that AK103K posted about how a slamfire nearly killed the shooter. Sure it didn't happen to you, that isn't proof that it can't. Just so you know, out of battery slamfires have been pretty thoroughly discussed up to this point and it seems that it's a pretty rare occurrence. For that matter several other points have been made, all of which precede your post by a good 75 replies. Most of which were made in a respectful manner.
It wasn't my intention to offend anyone but the original post wasn't even close to being in the form of a question. And you used the word...con·clu·sion...
1-the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.
2-final decision: The judge has reached his conclusion.
and as·ser·tion...
1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion...
Well so much for this evenings english lesson...Not to mention the title of the thread...Sad realization about M1A's...Those kind of words would normally come from someone that has at least used a product extensively to be able to have some authority behind his opinion...I was just shocked by what I thought to be misleading information...No biggie...Don't guess you will introduce me to your sister now huh?...:>) Getting out of the house is a euphemism for experience...Its not a tone...sorry...
Gary
Tailfeathers: It seems as though you simply read my first post, ignored the 127 other posts that include others I authored along the way. If such is the case it stands to reason that you're unaware/ unconcerned with the actual purpose of my post.
"This is the observations of someone completely ignorant to this fine rifle...Almost none of what you wrote is accurate.."
Perhaps you're inclined to ignore that I was and have been asking THR members to relate their experience to confirm or contradict the assertions I made as a result from reading a book AND SHOOTING AN M1A! Ragging on me for asking folks with more experience than I have to determine the truth about something doesn't embody a sage voice of reason. More to the point, your comment "You need to get out of the house more." pretty much spotlights your unwarranted aggressive tone. If you'd read the preceding posts you would have noted that AK103K posted about how a slamfire nearly killed the shooter. Sure it didn't happen to you, that isn't proof that it can't. Just so you know, out of battery slamfires have been pretty thoroughly discussed up to this point and it seems that it's a pretty rare occurrence. For that matter several other points have been made, all of which precede your post by a good 75 replies. Most of which were made in a respectful manner.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
Good point. I'm really surprised that we never saw more reports from the military due to it over the years with the M1. I grew up shooting the M1 and was taught to shoot them by active military shooters who were issued them at some point in their careers, and they all let that bolt fly, as did just about anyone else I ever saw shoot them. I dont ever remember seeing a SLED until the 80's. Not that you really need one if you just "heel" the bolt home.
I hadnt thought about that with the HK's and FAL's. The M1/M1A's open top makes it a lot easier to single load by just dropping the round in, especially from prone. My HK's and FAL were always loaded by mag, I cant ever remember loading a single round in them. From the standpoint of ""competition" rifles, the M1/M1A's are the target rifles, the HK's combat rifles, and the FAL's clubs.
Like I said, the M1A's make a nice target rifle, but for an all around combat rifle, the HK wins. It is much more versatile and has better "combat" sights and a sling system everyone else is still trying to copy. They can be dot sighted or scoped at will with no modification or need for a cheek piece, that also interferes with the iron sights when the scope is removed. The 91/G3 is as, if not more accurate than most standard grade M1A's. Configuration changes are simple and quick,(not that you want to shoot a 91 with a collapsing stock on a steady basis) and bipods are easily attached if thats something you like.I will put my Springfield Standard against any other .308 battle rifle in whatever test you want to give it, period. Bring it on!
4fingermick
Member
Nice rifles JMB1911/1911JMB, I carried those but with wooden stocks in the Australian Army. I think if I could get three minutes of angle out of an FN/FAL I'd be delighted. Now try me on a fast moving target and I will nail it, SLRs point like upland shotguns (SLR= what we call the FN/FAL, later on, the troops call them slurs)
AK103, I like my PTR-91, but I would not be so quick to say it is as good or better. It is just as heavy if not heavier and has about twice the recoil. People say they like the sights, personal opinion I guess. You can pop a scope mount and scope on the M14 almost just as easily. It rides just as high as the HK and can be taken on and off without worrying about denting the receiver. I never used a cheek piece with my Dad's scoped M14. I plan to get a cheek piece for my PTR simply because using it comfortably with the recoil demands it for me. Just my personal opinion I guess. The well made and cheap surplus mags are a big advantage to the HK though.
I guess it has been said that the original post's remarks were solely about M14 target rifles and some problems people have had. Those problems are not indicative of all M14's at all; neither do they seem to be indicative of all M14 target rifles.
I guess it has been said that the original post's remarks were solely about M14 target rifles and some problems people have had. Those problems are not indicative of all M14's at all; neither do they seem to be indicative of all M14 target rifles.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
My 91's weighed about the same as my M1A's, the balance is a little different and seems more forward on the 91's.
I never noticed the recoil to be much different, just a different impulse.
I never liked the scope mounts available for the M1A's. They always placed the scope way to high for me and they didnt feel natural to shoot with. Unless there was a cheek piece there was no cheek weld.
I've been thinking of picking up one of the new Ultimak rails for my SOCOM if I keep it, I've grown to really like red dots and while the mount on my SOCOM works, its a little high and not mil spec. I've got a couple of the Ulltimaks on my AK''s, and they work great. Well made and they keep things low.
For the HK's the ARMS claw mount is actually more versatile and usable than the HK's ring mount. It gives you the option of any scope or red dot, and allows them to be mounted lower. With the right scope, the whole thing fits in a pocket. Both mounts repeatably hold zero, and are instant on or off as needed. With the stock design on the HK the need for a cheek pad is pretty much eliminated if you keep the scope down. You just slide your head up the ramp a little and you still get a decent, natural weld. You also still have instant use of the irons too.
The M1A's irons are definitely better for a target rifle, but the HK''s sights are easier and faster to use as a battle sight. You cant miss that big rear notch and the front globe for quick, close shooting, and the post is always instantly available for more precision shooting. You also dont have to remember "clicks", just turn the knob to the number.
I think most all of it is user preference. We probably all tend to like what we learned on just a little more, then again, maybe for some, its all there is to know. I've been lucky and unlucky enough to have owned and shot most of the different combat type rifles at some point in my life and if I had to grab just one, believe it or dont, it would be the lowly AK in 7.62x39. Light, handy, brutally simple to use, and plenty accurate for my needs. I'll still keep one M1 and M1A though.
I never noticed the recoil to be much different, just a different impulse.
I never liked the scope mounts available for the M1A's. They always placed the scope way to high for me and they didnt feel natural to shoot with. Unless there was a cheek piece there was no cheek weld.
I've been thinking of picking up one of the new Ultimak rails for my SOCOM if I keep it, I've grown to really like red dots and while the mount on my SOCOM works, its a little high and not mil spec. I've got a couple of the Ulltimaks on my AK''s, and they work great. Well made and they keep things low.
For the HK's the ARMS claw mount is actually more versatile and usable than the HK's ring mount. It gives you the option of any scope or red dot, and allows them to be mounted lower. With the right scope, the whole thing fits in a pocket. Both mounts repeatably hold zero, and are instant on or off as needed. With the stock design on the HK the need for a cheek pad is pretty much eliminated if you keep the scope down. You just slide your head up the ramp a little and you still get a decent, natural weld. You also still have instant use of the irons too.
The M1A's irons are definitely better for a target rifle, but the HK''s sights are easier and faster to use as a battle sight. You cant miss that big rear notch and the front globe for quick, close shooting, and the post is always instantly available for more precision shooting. You also dont have to remember "clicks", just turn the knob to the number.
I think most all of it is user preference. We probably all tend to like what we learned on just a little more, then again, maybe for some, its all there is to know. I've been lucky and unlucky enough to have owned and shot most of the different combat type rifles at some point in my life and if I had to grab just one, believe it or dont, it would be the lowly AK in 7.62x39. Light, handy, brutally simple to use, and plenty accurate for my needs. I'll still keep one M1 and M1A though.
- Status
