It fills a niche in my military collection.
Ditto.
I would take the M1A out to range days, or Service Rifle matches, precisely because is wanted the extra effort to really shoot well. As more of a demonstration of technical expertise.
M14 was expected to be too many things. War Department started with a simple "ask"--Garand with a magazine.
Then, in 1947, we get the Department of Defense, so, different cats were in charge of the yarn balls.
Then, we had a dust-up in Korea from 1950 to 1953, where a bunch of or retreads and "would have beens" were exposed to a very new sort of combat.
Enter in the "Whiz Kids" at DoD. They got it in their heads that the "new rifle" would replace the M3 Grease gun, the M1 Garand, the M1 Carbine, and the M1918 BAR, all in one rifle. All while a bunch of European folk were talking about that "sensible" 7.9x33 mauser round, and "intermediate" became a buzz word. And weight-and-quantity of ammo had been demonstrated as an actual combat "thing." What with all the materiel that had been drug up and down the length of the Korean Peninsula, three times in as many years.
So, we wind up with the "compromise" round, the 7.62x51nato to replace four other ammunition types. So, all of that was why the M-14 had a 13 year gestation period (officially, closer to 16 years in reality). This step child was meant to keep as many Garand things as it could (as a cost saving and as a familiarization "thing"), but be very different from a Garand. Oh, and can we bolt a scope on it, too? And launch grenades? And be a machine gun? And a Carbine, please?
All of this is why it has oddities. Like a stripper clip loading bridge, a "topping off" feature on the list since the 40s. And retained as a scope mounting point. Stripper clips were retained to make packing ammo bandoliers "easier" and with a "shoe" meant to go over the magazines to aid in rapid reloading in the field (despite the already proven notion of disposable magazines).
All of that work and effort, to be In Service 1962 to 1965.
Failings are all over the place. There's rather a huge hole into the receiver as a result of the long throw action. Not an issue on a neat & clean KD range. Less good in muddy places or around snow or swamps. The op rod and bolt really do not have that many precision points of contact. That was a plus on the Garand. For fullauto fire, you really want more precision on exactly where the bolt and rod run.
So it was a lousy Carbine, a terrible SMG, hopeless as a BAR and there were just too many compromises to make it a decent rifle. In competition, the FAL easily left it in the dust. "Not made here" just not being permissible. The AR-10 was a better rifle to the task, too--even with its peccadilloes and warts.
As a 4-6 MOA battle rifle, it's suitable. It can be "dialed in" to be a decent High Power rifle for competition. But, with more than little bit of effort and determination.
I'm likely biased in this, and I'll admit it too.
