Why is M14/M1A making a come back?

[LexusNexus]

M14 is old technology based on WWII Garand, doing the samething that FAL and G3 could do just as well, maybe even better. It's heavy, no pistol grip, no rails (unless for ugly modern aftermarket) and does not have the tactical appearance. SO why all the interest, SA is asking for 1k+ for each and people are buying like hotcakes. You even see SOCOM in Iraq using it. Is it because all the wannabe keyboard commandos buying whatever SOCOM uses?

 

[M92FS]

M-14 is chambered for .308/7.62 x 51mm cartridge. it's got better stopping power compare to .223/5.56 x 45mm cartridge for AR-15 rifles.

 

[rangerruck]

no, it's because they are just worth more. Plus guys in the field, whether here in the cities by cops, or in the sandbox, want two things, hit a guy from 800 yds away, or if in close quarters, smash a guy through a wall. little chance of either with a 5.56. not impossible for the 800yds hit, but you will not shoot through a reinforced door with it.

 

[Fosbery]

7.62mm is making a come back in the US military (although one should be careful not to over-state this, it's not being issued en mass, the vast vast majority of troops still use M16 series rifles) because of concerns over the stopping power of 5.56mm. The M14 is the rifle being used simply because it's there. The FAL and the Stgw.57/AMT are far superior battle rifles but the US army already has tons of M14s, armourer's who are familiar with it and instructors who can teach soldiers how to use it.

If I were in charge of the US military, I'd just switch to using the more powerful British 5.56mm ammunition. No problems with stopping power there

 

[Geno]

5.56 good to 300 yards V 7.62 good to 1000 yards

It's about ballistic coefficients, and above all, penetration. Many 5.56 rounds tend to tumble on impact and the 7.62 penetrates straighter, and at longer distances. Here is a good read:

http://www.olyarms.com/?rootView=page&page=223articles

I own and like both, but for different applications: 5.56 for varmint and plinking inexpensively, and 7.62 in my SA M1A "Loaded" for hunting deer and long distance shooting now that I again am able to fire rifles.

I also find the SA M1A to be superior in accuracy. They are worth every penny.

Edited to add that several companies do make after-market stocks, with pistol grip, collapsing stock, and rails. That fact seems to place the M1A at the same level as an AR style rifle.

Doc2005

 

[Gordon]

in 1968 I took an m-14 up Hamburger Hill rather than an m-16. I gave m-16s a try in 1970 and later though. I used an HK-91 in 1979 and switched to an m-14 a few years later for practical rifle competition- they just seemed to work better for that game in the 80's. I started using FALs in the 90s, they can be made real nice.I have some AKs set up pretty nice for HD and keep those reliable things ready to go. I used AR-15s for almost 200 hours of training in the 2000's so far , but I am going back to a short trick m-14, I think they are more egonomic and reliable. The m-14's are still Kali legal, to show how moronic the laws are!

 

[Nightcrawler]

Rails?

No current rifle design was designed with rails. Lest we all forget, those uber-tacitcal M4 carbines are little more than 1965 M16A1s with shorter barrels and rail handguards bolted on.

Rail handguards can be made for any design out there. I've seen them for the M1 Garand, for crying out loud.

The M14 is making a comeback in the military for the DMR program because they still have M14s in the inventory. Personally, I'd like to see a tricked-out, free-floated FAL pressed into the role, but the Pentagon stopped returning my phone calls.

They may be experiencing a jump in civilian popularity becasue Springfield came out with the SOCOM. People these days like shory, handy carbines. We're all convinced we're going to have to do building sweeps (myself included; my FAL recently came back with a 16" barrel). Rifles are just handier that way.

As for the price...

Why is it people complain about the price of every rifle out there except the AR-15? Why is $1,000+ for an M1A, made by one company, too much? How about $800 for an AR-15 that the company whose rollstamp is on it didn't actually produce? Most AR-15 makers farm out their production to subcontractors. Given that, and the volumes of production, a stock AR-15 should cost like $500, same as a high-end AK. The cheapest quality AR you'll see is probably $699 for a DPMS, though. Bushmaster costs more. Colt, Rock River, Wilson, Knights Armament...cha-ching!

 

[Grunt]

Hmm, reliable under all sorts of conditions, accurate, rugged as an AK and fires a round that can outrange a 5.56 and still do damage at those ranges. Can an M-16 compete at long range accuracy? Sure, but what kind of stopping power does it have at those longer ranges? Doesn't take much to poke a hole in paper and cheese cloth but when you are talking muscle, bones and tissue, it's a different story. So what if it's an older design. It works. As far as rails and all this other "tactical" doo-dads, a lot of riflemen see this stuff as gadgets that attempt to compensate for the shooters lack of skill.

 

[mainmech48]

Chambering a more powerful cartridge with better-than-twice the effective range, more effective penetration at all ranges, and a high standard of accuracy in a package with better functional reliability under harsh conditions than the current issue weapon just might explain why it's been kept on-hand for issue to designated marksmen for all these years.

Civilian target shooters in Service Rifle matches were once at an marked disadvantage when competing against the tuned and accurized M14s available to active and reserve military personnel with even the best modified Garands. When Springfield produced an "M14" which eliminated the select-fire feature that had made them effectively impossible for civilians to obtain, all that changed.

They continue to sell a bunch of them in various levels of trim and configuration, even at a grand or more a pop, because they are the ultimate refinement of the Garand design - not in spite of it. The "lack" of provision for hanging whatever bells and whistles might currently be the "Flavor of the Month" on something affects it's basic practicality and effectiveness not a whit.

 

[citizen]

+1,000....what nightcrawler said.

 

[Telperion]

The M14 is capable of match-grade accuracy with its stock iron sights, something I don't hear about with the FAL or G3. By the way, there are pistol grip stocks available, and there are certainly ways to make a M14 look tacticool.

The M14 clones have also been very popular in California, where it is basically the only choice if you want a magazine-fed semi-auto that has full-capacity mags. It sure seems a lot of people in California were wise enough to stock up on 20 round mags before the ban.

Nightcrawler is spot-on with comments about price. The M16 is our military's current rifle, in addition to being popular with law enforcement agencies everywhere in the country. With the present military mobilization, there is an enormous amount of labor and capital deployed for its production, which is why they are now so cheap. The M14 hasn't been in production for over 40 years; when the military wants one, it grabs it from out of storage. The only manufacturers on the civilian side are Springfield, and some (much) smaller players like LRB and Fulton. Anyone looking at the situation would say of course it is going to be more expensive than an AR-15.

 

[Dmack_901]

I have to believe the various "assault weapons" bans contributed to it. And the non-tacticool look probably helps too. It's kinda embarrassing to bring a decked out m4 to the range.

As for the military aspect, I don't think it ever left.

 

[Fosbery]

No current rifle design was designed with rails.

G36C? That was designed so that rails could be attached to it whenever needed if IIRC.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I carried an M14 as a company commander in Viet Nam (the accurized, scoped pre-M21 version.) I also occasionally operated with Australian advisers who had the FAL.

I'll take the M14.

 

[George Hill]

Same reasons classic Hot Rods are making a come back. They are powerful and cool and such things need no explanation.
M14's or 'Cudas... girls in tight sweaters.... they really don't ever go out of style.

 

[Seven High]

M16 Ammunition

Fosbery: Please tell me about the more powerful British ammunition. I assumed that the British were using the same ammunition tht U.S. forces are.

 

[carebear]

I have one because, whenever reality intrudes on my tacticool fantasies, I remember I might want to use the rifle for more than just the range or practicing clearing my house for the thousandth time.

I live in Alaska, most of the game up here requires a medium rifle caliber at minimum to humanely and reliably take. .308 is a real rifle caliber, I can shoot actual hunting rounds through it and take bear, moose or caribou AND keep it handy for the zombie hordes or for when the Russkies come over the Strait.

Can't do that with a .22, not up here.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Here in Arkansas, not too long ago, people near Quitman were reporting seeing a pride of African lions roaming the woods. By some miracle, the Sheriff's Department didn't ignore them, but went out and looked. There were five of them -- apparently abandoned by someone who wanted a local "big cat refuge" to take them, but the refuge was full.

The deputies used M1As to deal with the problem.

 

[Fosbery]

Seven High, it's 5.56mm NATO, but it's loaded to a higher power and uses 'better' bullets. That, and even if we used US ammunition we'd get up to higher velocities than a lot of US troops because the L85, which is the same length as an M4, has the same barrel length as an M16.

Think of it to US 5.56mm, as US 5.56mm is to .223 rem.

 

[Grunt]

Too bad the L85 doesn't work half the time. Seriously though, did they ever get the old SA-80 to ever work right or is it still a junker?

 

[4v50 Gary]

I'd rather see an AR-10 type rifle in the hands of our troops. First, the DM won't stand out as much as if he carried the M-14 in whatever form. Second, the AR action is inherently more accurate with its gas impingment action and fewer parts than the M-14. Third, it's easier to keep an AR type action going and going accurately than the M-14. Still, follow the money. It's what we got so it's what we'll use.

 

[Quintin Likely]

'Cause they're cool.

 

[loadedround]

...and they are just plain better!

 

[Fosbery]

"Too bad the L85 doesn't work half the time. Seriously though, did they ever get the old SA-80 to ever work right or is it still a junker?"

Don't believe the rubbish you hear. I never once had a problem with it. I mean, of course I had failures but no more than I have had using FALs, AKs, AR15s and H&K rifles. It shoots further, more accurately and with more power than an M16, is much shorter but is so heavy that you can fire it on full auto, drain the magazine and barely feel the recoil. It's a pain to lug around at first, but that just gets you more fit more quickly. That, and it's without a doubt the most comfortable and natural pointing rifle I've ever used, and I've used a lot. Having said all that, the original L85 was not without its faults, but it was a lot better than the original M16, that's for sure. The main issues like the fiddly mag release and the unpredictable direction of case ejection and the relatively weak pistol grip have been fixed with the A2 which is a superb weapon by any account.

The media have got it in for the British equipment. They can't complain about the troops because the public don't want to hear it, so they target the equipment instead.

 

[Monkeyleg]

I would still like to know why the SA M1A base model with a walnut stock is so expensive.

A Remington 7400 with a walnut stock is about $500. A standard M1A around here goes for over $1300. Even the cheapest online gun stores charge $1200.

Both have wood stocks, although the 7400 has a fancier stock.

Both have great barrels, although the 7400 is polished and blued (more expensive to produce).

Both have milled receivers.

The M1A has sights, and great sights. But are the sights alone worth the additional $800?

Don't get me wrong, the M1A is a great rifle, and I want one something fierce. I just don't understand the price.