You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
An interesting, and rather negative, look at the M-14 rifle
- Thread starter Mike Irwin
- Start date
i don,t have a ar in 762x51, but have been on the range when on was being fired and it problems with its magizines(three out of five caused jams). i may get one later, but for now my heavy out of date not easily scoped m1a(its a 1983 SA) will have to due. by the way i have fired over 1000 rounds over 3 weeks with out a jam and it shoots sub 2" groups at 100 yrds(ammo was reloaded). my only cleaning over the 3 weeks with 1000 rounds fired took less than 10 minutes to preform. cleaning the bore, chamber,and gas piston. i did the cleaning after firing 500 rounds and after the 1000th round had been fired at the range before going home. mounting a scope may be a little easier, that the only thing i feel may be better, to me the m1a is easier to maintane and weight difference is minor, the safety,s are a push and charging the chamber is easier to me, and i like the m1a,s sights better. some of the things i like about the m1a are personal and may not be for every body. eastbank.
Last edited:
bamaranger
New member
hard
I find the bit about the M1 having a higher rate of fire than an M14 hard to buy. Not so the full auto aspect, but semiauto as well. If a course of fire, or engagement lasts/requires less than 20 rds, how can a Garand shooter possibly keep up or match a M1A shooter, when having to reload twice? Then there's the tactical reload aspect as well. Makes me wonder how much else of the article is a bit contrived.
Warping stocks got solved with the advent of the synthetic stock for the M14.
As far as looks goes, to each his own. I feel the M1/M14 family is far more "handsome" than the AR clan......not that that accomplishes anything at all.
The AR10, full sized or in carbine guise with a bunch of hardware hung on it especially, is not a light firearm. Weight between the two is a toss up.
Scoping, the M14, or the M1 for that matter, conventionally with the scope over the receiver, is complicated no doubt. The dot sight, mounted forward as in the SOCOM or Squad model, seems the best solution for improvement over the GI peep. I will not address a scout scope, as it will simply cloud the issue.
The M16 certainly had its teething problems as well, and went straight into combat anyhow. We all know the stories, and the causes. Many years later it has evolved into the rifle of today.....but it did not always have a legion of fans. I feel certain we will hear from guys who carried the M14 and deplored the early M16's, soon.
I find the bit about the M1 having a higher rate of fire than an M14 hard to buy. Not so the full auto aspect, but semiauto as well. If a course of fire, or engagement lasts/requires less than 20 rds, how can a Garand shooter possibly keep up or match a M1A shooter, when having to reload twice? Then there's the tactical reload aspect as well. Makes me wonder how much else of the article is a bit contrived.
Warping stocks got solved with the advent of the synthetic stock for the M14.
As far as looks goes, to each his own. I feel the M1/M14 family is far more "handsome" than the AR clan......not that that accomplishes anything at all.
The AR10, full sized or in carbine guise with a bunch of hardware hung on it especially, is not a light firearm. Weight between the two is a toss up.
Scoping, the M14, or the M1 for that matter, conventionally with the scope over the receiver, is complicated no doubt. The dot sight, mounted forward as in the SOCOM or Squad model, seems the best solution for improvement over the GI peep. I will not address a scout scope, as it will simply cloud the issue.
The M16 certainly had its teething problems as well, and went straight into combat anyhow. We all know the stories, and the causes. Many years later it has evolved into the rifle of today.....but it did not always have a legion of fans. I feel certain we will hear from guys who carried the M14 and deplored the early M16's, soon.
Here's a knowledgeable veteran's view: http://weaponsman.com/?p=20589
I find it amusing that some would list the exact technical items that the AR10 has which are superior, and in the same breath state they don't make any difference.
Ergonomics has a great deal to do with the AR series being a better rifle. And the choice of caliber reflects the reality of what was happening on the battlefield. While the combat company may control the last 500m in front of their lines, it's the crew served weapons that actually range that far. The average Infantryman was noted as not taking shots past 125m and the research goes back to WWI.
Hits after that range were largely chance, not directed fire. The enemy was simply a moving downrange backstop.
What hasn't changes is the average man's egotism that he "needs" a large caliber rifle that can reach out to 800m. And yet the abysmal lack of ranges that offer those training facilities is the answer.
The M1/M14 were our service rifles, but, they weren't all that. Professionals chose a different platform to meet the reality and demands of combat post WWII, and that became the M16.
It is technically and tactically superior, listing it's advantages and saying that they can't possibly be the reason borders on the driest humor I've ever read.
I find it amusing that some would list the exact technical items that the AR10 has which are superior, and in the same breath state they don't make any difference.
Ergonomics has a great deal to do with the AR series being a better rifle. And the choice of caliber reflects the reality of what was happening on the battlefield. While the combat company may control the last 500m in front of their lines, it's the crew served weapons that actually range that far. The average Infantryman was noted as not taking shots past 125m and the research goes back to WWI.
Hits after that range were largely chance, not directed fire. The enemy was simply a moving downrange backstop.
What hasn't changes is the average man's egotism that he "needs" a large caliber rifle that can reach out to 800m. And yet the abysmal lack of ranges that offer those training facilities is the answer.
The M1/M14 were our service rifles, but, they weren't all that. Professionals chose a different platform to meet the reality and demands of combat post WWII, and that became the M16.
It is technically and tactically superior, listing it's advantages and saying that they can't possibly be the reason borders on the driest humor I've ever read.
I might also ask how the AR10 outclasses the M1A? I can think of a few, but not every way. The AR10 is more accurate off the shelf, easier to mount optics on and has better ergos; that's all I can think of.
You just answered your own question.
You can also add that it shares the same basic manual-of-arms with the standard infantry carbine.
I think the FAL in the original chambering of .280 British, which was a good bit lighter than the 7.62x51 version, would have been really hard to beat as a fighting rifle.
I agree. IIRC the original chambering was 7.92 Kurtz, but it was made in the similar .270 & .280 British & many other intermediate calibers as well. Unfortunately politics, Col. René R. Studler & US Army Ordinance forced the ludicrous 7 Lb full auto version, firing the T65 (later 7.62 NATO) no matter how obvious it was that the idea violated most of the laws of physics. Even with 3 different U.S designs they couldn't fix things enough.
Well,,,
It's more accurate
It's easier to mount optics on
It has better ergonomics
It can't suffer from the wood warping due to varying levels of humidity
No one has said in 'every way' but even you admitted that it was better.
Is there some way that you believe the M14/M1A is superior to the AR10 (or for that matter to the T48/FAL)?
When you look at (essentially anything) vs. the M14, you have to separate several different things in your mind, in order to do a fair comparison.
Things like what is best suited for the desired military role, and what is best suited to you or I as a civilian shooter, for one.
Another is comparing a basic stock rifle you can buy "off the shelf" against one with all the aftermarket extra you can bolt on.
And then, there are also those design features which you think important, which may not be to someone else.
And, also, be careful to compare apples to apples, only, if, and where possible.
I've used the M14. And fired it full auto. I've owned an M1A for decades. I've done range time with a couple different makers versions of the AR 10. I've fired the FAL, and owned a civilian version.
I've fired the G3, and owned an HK 91.
lets look at some of the points already mentioned, AR10 vs. M14;
"its more accurate"
Ok, I'll agree, today's AR 10s will give you better groups than a rack grade M14. Maybe better than a Match grade? OK. So what? Outside of paper punching and match shooting, what does that accuracy "advantage" get you? The M14 is accurate enough for combat use. So is the AR. Both shoot as well as I do from field positions, if not better. I consider it a wash, for combat use.
"its easier to mount optics on"
Absolutely. Point for the AR, IF you use optics.
Right now, its uncommon to find an AR 10 that has sights. You have to add them, or use an optic. The M14 has good peep sights, standard equipment.
"It has better ergonomics"
This is a personal matter for many of us. What constitutes "better"???
Simply saying the AR has better ergonomics means nothing. What (in your opinion) makes it better? Please, be specific.
"It can't suffer from the wood warping due to varying levels of humidity"
True, there is no wood to warp. A properly finished wood stock doesn't warp, or only warps a small amount. While this is a big issue with a bolt action, or any rifle fitted in the old style (not free floated barrel), with the M14, the GI wood stock fit is "generous" in many areas, and there are many synthetic stocks that avoid the issue entirely.
A couple of people have mentioned "reduced ammo" due to weight, or "large heavy magazines". When comparing AR 10 to M14, this is completely irrelevant.
There are some features of the AR that might be considered double edged swords. Opinions vary.
The enclosed action design. Makes it tougher for stuff to get it, BUT also makes it tougher for what gets in, to get out.
Manual bolt operation. AR charging handle only works one way (pulls back), and the leverage area is small. M14 op rod handle works both ways, and has a fairly large handle to exert force on, if needed. Is this important? How important? Opinions vary.
Magazine reliability. Early gen AR 10 mags were notoriously unreliable. Later ones seem much better. M14 mags have a long proven history of reliablility.
Much has been made of the uncontrollability of the M14 on full auto. This is entirely true for anyone not experienced shooting it on full auto. Experience moves the M14 from "uncontrollable" to "very difficult" to control. And the receiver is (essentially) overstressed during FA fire, which has led to issues (cracking, etc.)
This is not the fault of the rifle, directly. It is the fault of where the development was stopped. Some civilian experimenters have found that a fairly simple change to the gas system can reduce the cyclic rate down to something that is both controllable and does not overstress the receivers. The military never bothered to figure that out.
The M14 is a good combat rifle. The intent to make it a master of all trades, failed. Its too light to be a good BAR class gun (with the original cyclic rate), and too big and heavy to be a good assault rifle. In original GI trim, its length is a drawback when getting in and out of vehicles is important. (and so is the original (and shorter) M16 series., which is one reason we now use M4 carbines a lot).
Everything is a trade off, and what is vitally important to you might be "meh.." to me, and vice versa.
The M1A fits me well. For me, it balances well. AR, FAL, HK, all good guns, all with their strengths and weaknesses. I have had them all, and gotten rid of all except the M1A. Might be nostalgia, as much as anything, but for me, the M1A is the keeper.
A fellow shooter let me shoot his James River Armory M1A at our range a couple of years ago, and when I accidently bumpfired it {by failing to keep my trigger finger fully depressed to the rear during recoil,} found that the M1A's recoil was very difficult to control in terms of keeping the rifle on target.
Special thanks to: former General Curtiss "Bombs Away" LeMay, former Secretary of the Army Cyruss Vance and former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara for help bringing the M-16 to our U.S. Armed Forces.
Special thanks to: former General Curtiss "Bombs Away" LeMay, former Secretary of the Army Cyruss Vance and former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara for help bringing the M-16 to our U.S. Armed Forces.
Last edited:
98 220 swift
New member
http://https://www.full30.com/video/6618755f336970e55e6c50c1fe894ff8
Here is a video of some testing with a m1a and a ar15 and a French mas. They also do the same rifles with mud in another test with similar results. I am not against the m1a(m14) just found this video interesting and goes well with the discussion.
Here is a video of some testing with a m1a and a ar15 and a French mas. They also do the same rifles with mud in another test with similar results. I am not against the m1a(m14) just found this video interesting and goes well with the discussion.
I love the Ak-47 but I am not convinced it is in any way superior to the vz.58.
It's not.
I own semi-auto variants of both, and in almost every respect, the vz.58 design is superior to the AK. It's lighter, more accurate, softer-recoiling, more ergonomic, has a well-executed LRBHO, and is just as durable and reliable.
The few exceptions are:
-The AK is easier and faster to field strip, and easier to clean (far fewer nooks and crannies).
-vz.58 handguards heat up FAST, even in semi-auto aimed fire. You always see Czech soldiers wearing gloves.
-In theory, the tilting breech-locking mechanism of the vz.58 could be shut down by a small amount of sand entering the system. In reality, this is offset by the "closed system" design of the vz.58. Sand doesn't have much opportunity to get into the system.
A major consideration is the anticipated use and current tactical thinking of the army that is adopting the rifle. In the 1950's, all U.S. Army planning and tactical thinking was focused on the vision of a massive Soviet tank and infantry attack across the North European plain and at the Fulda gap. In that kind of territory, a long range, high power battle rifle made a lot of sense. Also, the main criticisms of the M1 rifle had been its clip loading (8 or none), and its weight and recoil. There was little push for selective fire, though it was thought that a replacement for the BAR was needed and that the new rifle could be modified to fill that role.
But the best laid plans.... We ended up fighting, not on the plains of Germany but in the jungles of Southeast Asia, where a high power rifle was not needed. The AR-15 was not a bad choice, had it been fully developed and had the necessary cleaning supplies and troop training been available. Unfortunately, senior officers accepted Colt's nonsense that the new rifle was perfect, never needing cleaning and never failing. At best, Colt was optimistic; at worst, they lied. Either way, the result was disaster.
Jim
But the best laid plans.... We ended up fighting, not on the plains of Germany but in the jungles of Southeast Asia, where a high power rifle was not needed. The AR-15 was not a bad choice, had it been fully developed and had the necessary cleaning supplies and troop training been available. Unfortunately, senior officers accepted Colt's nonsense that the new rifle was perfect, never needing cleaning and never failing. At best, Colt was optimistic; at worst, they lied. Either way, the result was disaster.
Jim
98 220 swift
New member
https://www.full30.com/video/6618755f336970e55e6c50c1fe894ff8
Sorry try this. May have to copy and paste.
Sorry try this. May have to copy and paste.
Darker Loaf
New member
HAH! I saw this thread and immediately thought of Ian's video on the MAS vs. AR-15 vs. M1A. The M1A is the worst performer of mud and sand tests. The AR-15 (in the video series) performs the best (not jamming at all in sand). The M1A would only fire one round before a jam. Pretty amazing/eye opening tests in terms of reliability in adverse conditions.
I would imagine a worked-out, modern AR-10 would function pretty much like an AR-15, assuming the gas-port size and buffer tube weights and spring was tuned right. Like an AR-15, an AR-10 has a relatively closed system. One of the problems with the M1A is that it is totally open.
Here are the mud test's that Ian from Forgotten Weapons on Full30: https://www.full30.com/video/9eef6b3a4eb6c8846a4c8dc4b8968bc4
I would imagine a worked-out, modern AR-10 would function pretty much like an AR-15, assuming the gas-port size and buffer tube weights and spring was tuned right. Like an AR-15, an AR-10 has a relatively closed system. One of the problems with the M1A is that it is totally open.
Here are the mud test's that Ian from Forgotten Weapons on Full30: https://www.full30.com/video/9eef6b3a4eb6c8846a4c8dc4b8968bc4
Gunplummer
New member
The whole article is biased. What does faulty manufacture have to do with a design? H&R lost their M16 contract due to putting sub standard parts in their rifles. The M16 was one big problem from the day of inception, but no one wants to remember that. I dare the writer of that article to stand on top of the butts @ 500 yards when I have an M-14 in my hand that I have a dope sheet worked out on.
I wouldn't take that dare in front of a competent shooter with a good shooting AR, M16 or M4 either. But the fact is that extended range capability is lost on the majority of users. Rather like the proliferation of 7 mm and 300 Magnum deer rifles that are mostly used within 200 yards. People carry them in case one walks out "way out there", either ignoring or unaware of the skill required to connect as ranges extend.
Last I knew, the AMU has gone to the M110 for long range service rifle matches. The NRA approved it as a Service Rifle a couple years ago. It wouldn't surprise me if the Army wanted it because M14 parts are drying up and the rifles are harder to keep in match trim. And as much as Service Rifle shooters like our AR15s, the 7.62 is more reliable beyond 600 yards.
Last I knew, the AMU has gone to the M110 for long range service rifle matches. The NRA approved it as a Service Rifle a couple years ago. It wouldn't surprise me if the Army wanted it because M14 parts are drying up and the rifles are harder to keep in match trim. And as much as Service Rifle shooters like our AR15s, the 7.62 is more reliable beyond 600 yards.
Last edited:
First, I would like to start off with saying that I own a M1A and really like the rifle.
But, The M14 is one of those firearms that has a reputation that exceeds it's actual performance as a combat arm. Even at the time of it's development it was a bit on the archaic side. There was little forward thinking in it's design or manufacture; and being designed as a "jack of all trades" weapon it didn't do anything exceptionally well.
The fact is that the M1 Garand was so highly regarded at the time that everyone was still stuck in that "battle rifle" mindset; when most things (at least in hindsight) pointed to the smaller, medium caliber weapons bein the future if warfare.
Like the 1896 Krag rifles, the M14 was a good rifle built at a time when better rifle could have been had, had we had a bit of foresight.
But, The M14 is one of those firearms that has a reputation that exceeds it's actual performance as a combat arm. Even at the time of it's development it was a bit on the archaic side. There was little forward thinking in it's design or manufacture; and being designed as a "jack of all trades" weapon it didn't do anything exceptionally well.
The fact is that the M1 Garand was so highly regarded at the time that everyone was still stuck in that "battle rifle" mindset; when most things (at least in hindsight) pointed to the smaller, medium caliber weapons bein the future if warfare.
Like the 1896 Krag rifles, the M14 was a good rifle built at a time when better rifle could have been had, had we had a bit of foresight.
Really it comes down to two things. First is the actual rifle, and what it is, and second what it was wanted to be. TO further complicate the matter is the fact that after the rifle was produced, the brass changed their minds about what was needed.
The M14 is an improved Garand. It fires the same bullet, at the same speed, and does it from a rifle that is a pound lighter, a little shorter, And has a 20rnd detatchable box magazine. Repositioning and redesign of the gas system raised the over all accuracy of the rack grade guns enough to be remarked on, if maybe not as much as was bragged about.
The box mag is what the Garand could have had, had the pre WWII military not been so insistent against it for the infantry rifle. The sights are excellent fully adjustable peep sights, exactly the same sights used on the Garand, and "proven" by WWII results.
Another factor, often overlooked today is that the bulk of the machinery needed to produce the m14 was the same machinery needed to produce the Garand, and was already in place, and paid for.
The M14 is an improved Garand. It fires the same bullet, at the same speed, and does it from a rifle that is a pound lighter, a little shorter, And has a 20rnd detatchable box magazine. Repositioning and redesign of the gas system raised the over all accuracy of the rack grade guns enough to be remarked on, if maybe not as much as was bragged about.
The box mag is what the Garand could have had, had the pre WWII military not been so insistent against it for the infantry rifle. The sights are excellent fully adjustable peep sights, exactly the same sights used on the Garand, and "proven" by WWII results.
Another factor, often overlooked today is that the bulk of the machinery needed to produce the m14 was the same machinery needed to produce the Garand, and was already in place, and paid for.