Why is M14/M1A making a come back?

[Vern Humphrey]

1. The M1A and M14 were not designed for low-cost production.

2. The M1A is not made or sold in great volumes.

3. People will pay just about what they ask for as many as they can make.

 

[Danus ex]

Monkeyleg--

It would indeed be interesting to see someone battle-rifle-ize a Saiga 100, Remington 7400, a Browning BAR, and a Winchester SXR and see if/how they compete with an M1A, G3/PTR, and FAL.

 

[illini52]

...and they look badass!

 

[Byron Quick]

At the gunstores I support, the M1A never went away to come back later. I've seen it all over ever since SA started producing them. Never noticed a time they weren't available.

Sold my H&K 91. Kept my M1A.

 

[smince]

Monkeyleg:

I can't believe anyone on this forum would (or could) compare the M1A to a 7400

 

[DMK]

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.

I don't have an M1A/M14, but I have a Garand which is much like the M1A/M14 "under the hood". I also have two FALs.

You can't compare the FAL to the Garand as fars as accuracy. In similar condition, the Garand is a more accurate rifle and has much better sights. The M14s have proven to be even even more accurate than the Garand in competition. The FAL might have the edge of reliability in dirty conditions though, but the Garand and M14 have both been through a LOT of stuff with acceptable reliability.

One can mount a scope fairly easily on an M1A/M14 and Springfield makes a number of different rail options for the M1A. The simple top rail on the Scout models isn't asthetically unattractive at all.

The FAL has no rails. There are aftermarket scope mounts, but some are good, while others are garbage. DSA makes the one forearm rail system and it's very expensive.

The FAL was put into service around the same time as the M14. Both are old technology. Actually, most guns recycle old technology with a few improvments here and there. The FAL uses a tilting bolt mechanism similar to the SVT-40. Even the AR can trace some of it's roots back to the Johnson rifle of WWII. If something works, why try and reinvent it?

The FAL is very heavy. I'm not sure how the M14 compares, but my FALs are heavier than my Garand.

Quality commercial built FALs are only slightly cheaper than M1As. You can get them built for cheaper, but you can do the same with M14s too.

 

[Monkeyleg]

smince: "I can't believe anyone on this forum would (or could) compare the M1A to a 7400"

I'm only comparing the two in terms of cost of production. Nothing else.

And, before M1A owners get bent out of shape, remember that I said I really, really want one.

I'm just trying to figure out the cost differential between the 7400 (a semi-auto model I just picked at random) and the M1A.

If it's a question of supply versus demand, then hats off to SA for producing a real winner.

But what I really want to know is if there are other manufacturing costs involved with the M1A that establish its price.

 

[dmckean44]

Monkeyleg,

Just looking at the schematics the 7400 has about one third less parts than the M1A. I'm sure the rest of the cost is just accurizing and higher quality parts. You can't compare the sporting semi-autos to the battle rifles, they just don't have the same feel.

Your barrel comparison is a bit off, and expensive finish on a thin cheap barrel and whips bullets around costs about the same as the heavyier barrle in the parkerized finish.

 

[DPB]

I'm no expert, but I have been in Baghdad since February. Along with most of the 4th Infantry Division and 101st ABN. I have seen fewer than 10 M 14s. Only one or two had optics.

I think the "reissue" of the M14s has happened mostly in the popular firearm media.

There are some practical considerations driving this as well. Off the rack 14s were like 2-4 MOA guns when they were new. They were last new in the early 1960s. Time and use (after 100 rounds or so) and arsenal rebuilcing doesn't generally improve a rifles accuracy (consistency.) Additionally, the support and maintenance systems for these rifles was discarded, again, in the 1960s. You need spare parts for combat weapons, and these are largely not in the system. These are problems that you (and I) don't generally have to deal with when dealing with our M1As.

Also, the Army went to a bolt action sniper system (the M24), because it is so difficult to keep M14 based precision systems (the M21) match grade accurate.

Penetration is a questionable argument. I've seen the much maligned M855 (green tip) go through 5/8ths of an inch of steel at 500M, out of a 14.5 inch barrelled M-4. The same piece of steel was un marked by M118 Special Ball match ammo out of an M-24 (24 in. bbl. 7.62.).

The vast majority of the patrolling in Iraq is done from vehicles. Working in and out of a HMMWV, Stryker, Bradley, whatever, is infinitely easier with an M-4, or even M-16, than with an M-14. Especially when wearing armor.

Lethality at exended ranges is also a generally meaningless argument, since 1) Most engagements are taking place inside 100m, and 2) Every vehicle has one or more M-240s, MK-19s, or M-2s (50 cal.). Very few long range targets are being engaged with individual weapons, snipers being the exception.

Finally, it should be noted that the Marines, who, on average and across their service, tend to shoot better than the Army (man, it hurt to say that), are not issueing M-14s, they are issuing flat top M-16 variants.

I think M1As are popular because they are cool guns that people like to shoot, and they are getting a lot of good press. The fact that the press about their battlefield use is largely erroneous doesn't stop it from being widely read.

 

[Medusa]

Because they offer aimed fire at 800+ yards and with plenty of oompf at this range? We, for example, have M14s as sniper rifles (though I'd say they're more like DMRs) here. But of course, it depends on the intended role, for close combat the M4 would be much more useful, for long range&accurate fire the 7.62 would have it's niché. But so would artillery.

G3? If you ever read my blog I do describe my experiences with AK-4 (which is a clone of G3) and how the bastard jammed often due lack of cleaning (and I shot only 600-800 rounds through it) and probably low-quality ammo. Otherwise in range the G3 holds pretty tight groups with iron sights.

I got the AK since we were supposed to have only 7.62 blanks, later turned out that 3 Galils had showed up with limited amount of ammo. Otherwise I'd prefer my G36, as it's a lot lighter and handier and I'm more accustomed to it.

 

[Fosbery]

I disliked the full-size H&K rifles, like the G3. It's got no balance to it, it feels awkward like it's a struggle to keep the muzzle level.

The FAL was fine, from an ergonomics point of view, as was the M14 but I found that my FAL (an L1A1) was more accurate, and easier to shoot from standing too. Plus I found it simpler to strip, quicker to clean etc.

On the point of M14/M1A price, it's just the same as everything else in the world: supply and demand. If the supply is low, the price is high (all things being equal). If the demand is high, the price will be high (all things being equal). Clearly, not many M1A/M14s are made, but a lot of people want them, so the price goes right up.

 

[gripper]

The FAL is a softer shooter.Thats in part due to the op-rod of the M14 vs. the gas system of the FAL.A reason the direct gas impingement sytems tend to be better bench& offhand shooters at the range.Perceived recoil is different.I happen to like both.I'd give a nod to the M14 for the reciprocating bolt handle,but I also like the FAL with the Izzy HB bolt group (extra operating mass).

 

[smince]

I'm just trying to figure out the cost differential between the 7400 (a semi-auto model I just picked at random) and the M1A.

What dmckean44 said.

Plus, the 7400 receiver may (or may not) be machined, but it is nowhere near as complex and heavy-duty as the M1A receiver. Sporting rifles in general are not designed to be dragged through the muck and desert with little or no cleaning and be expected to not only fire, but fire reliably.

 

[Lebben-B]

DPB, excellent post, well said!

 

[Grumulkin]

I bought an SA National Match M1A back in the 80's. I figure it's now worth at least twice what I paid for it; not a bad investment.

 

[saltydog]

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

I'm going to guess it would be the same reason that Colt wants around $1200.00 dollars dealer price for its model 6920 varmint rifle.

I own 2 AR's and the only thing I like about them is their light weight,

and

I live in an area you can't see more than a 100 yards and I consider that perfect for me.

 

[Geno]

A nice site for M14, M1A and AR15 items

Fulton Armory has some pretty sweet items for sale. Check them out some day when you have a few minutes of free time:

http://www.fulton-armory.com/MAParts.htm

The Sage EBR/Mark 14 Tactical Stock/Accurizing System, for $719.95 is pretty cool-looking, but I'm happy with my M1A's factory stock.

Sage CAR Tactical Stock/Accurizing System makes the M1A look like an AR15, collapsing stock and all, for a mere $699.95!

For a mere $249.95, you can buy a Scope Mount, Smith, Steel, Extended Rail, Marked US Property for the receiver. It looks nice. Of course, there is a new M1A manufacturer that has designed a "new" version of said same, and it has the scope base built right into the receiver top. The Scope Mount, Smith, Steel, Extended Rail, Marked US Property doesn't look too bad either.

Well, if you're an M1A fan, this is your site! To view the AR items, you will need to go back to their home page. The above page is specifically the M14, M1A page. Happy viewing.

Edited to add:

http://www.fulton-armory.com/M1_Carbine.jpg

Psych!

Doc2005

 

[Kaylee]

DPB -- thank you for the first-hand report, and more importantly thank you for your service over there.

 

[Trebor]

...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.

Actually, none of those three statements is true.

The supplies of M-14's in the U.S. inventory are actually quite low. We destroyed some and gave hundreds of thousands away as military assistance to Latvia, Estonia, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries in the mid to late '90s. There are relatively few rifles left in the system and absolutely no spart parts.

There are NO school-trained armourers for the M-14 in the military. The knowledge base just isn't there.

The instructors aren't familiar with the M-14 either. The Army actually worked with the Civilian Marksmanship Program to get volunteer civilian instructors from the Texas State Rifle Association to teach military instructors the fundamentals of long range rifle shooting and how to use and instrut others on the M-14 rifle. That knowledge just isn't in the system anymore.

The U.S. military is only using the M-14 in limited numbers in limited applciations. Even then, the military is struggling with the problems caused by lack of rifles, lack of parts, and lack of training.

The new Semi-Auto Sniper System is AR based for a variety of reasons, not the least of them is that the training carries over from the M-16 series.

The use of the M-14 is currently nothing more then a stop-gap. Whatever the virtues (or vices) of the rifle itself, there are so many problems keeping it in service that the military immensely desires a replacement.

 

[DMK]

DPB, you make a lot of good points, many directly opposite of some assumptions made here at home. It's hard to argue with an observant guy in the thick of it.

Stay safe!

I found that my FAL (an L1A1) was more accurate, and easier to shoot from standing too. Plus I found it simpler to strip, quicker to clean etc.

Man, I agree whole heartedly about the FAL being easier to clean. The simplicity is very admirable. It's almost as easy to clean as a bolt action.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

The FAL is a softer shooter.Thats in part due to the op-rod of the M14 vs. the gas system of the FAL.A reason the direct gas impingement sytems tend to be better bench& offhand shooters at the range.Perceived recoil is different.I happen to like both.I'd give a nod to the M14 for the reciprocating bolt handle,but I also like the FAL with the Izzy HB bolt group (extra operating mass).

The FAL does not have a direct impingement gas system. It has a piston, just like the M-14 does. The FAL may have less reciprocating mass (not sure) than the M-14, however.

 

[ryoushi]

Fashion plan and simple. The trend started soon after Saving Private Ryan hit the theaters in 1998. M1s and retro 1911's were suddenly the shiznet.

Those hopped up M14 Crazy Horse Rifles are cool but so is an SPR

 

[Phantom Warrior]

There are NO school-trained armourers for the M-14 in the military.

He is correct, w/ the possible exception of something like the Army Marksmanship Unit. I'm SAM 31 qualified. That is the U.S. Army unit armorer's course. (I'm not actually a unit armorer, but that's a long story.) SAM 31 does not cover ANYTHING regarding the M-14. It covers the M9, M16, M203, M249, M240, M2, and Mk 19. Nothing else.

 

[Fosbery]

Ah, I stand corrected. I assumed the armourer's for the sniper units, familiar with the M21, would be able to train ordinary armourers for the M14 DMRs etc.

Heh, I would have given anything to be an armourer back in the British army. They dealt with all the gear from sniper rifles to machineguns to pistols, but also with any 'procured' weapons. They have everything 'in stock' from AK47s to .44 magnum hunting revolvers, Bofors anti-tank rifles, lugers, 1911s, even an M14. I have no idea where they get half the stuff from. I mean, some of it, like the AKs, are kept for foreign weapons familiarisation or incase some special forces unit needs to go under cover using foreign weaponry...but hunting revolvers? I think the armourers just use their status to build up their own little collections to play with

 

[Sven]

Powerful. Accurate. Availabile.



That would leave more than a mark.