M1A trials
- Thread starter Polinese
- Start date
I'm not worried per say was more just a curiosity. I'm firmly in the camp that mil spec does not mean best available but at the same time I figure it is a fair test of a rifle's general reliability/durability etc which made me wonder if the M1A would pass since they're a copy that as far as I know have never been subjected to anything besides plinking/competitions.
i have talked to several sons of friends of mine who serviced several tours in the sand box as real grunts(not desk grunts) and they said if they had a choice they would have liked to have had access to the m-14 quite a few times, even if only a few men had them at least they could have rooted out the long range shooters instead of waiting for air cover as there was no way to get closer to use the m-4 with out getting shot. eastbank.
Not trying to be a dick, but anything the M1A will do, a modern 308 AR will do better. I used to have a Springfield M1A and also have a Springfield M1 Garand. If I want a classic rifle feel, the M1 beats the M1A in my opinion. When it comes to a 762/308 box mag rifle, the AR platform beats it again.
I just never found anything that the M1A was really great for so a few years later I traded it for a Beretta and some cash.
I just never found anything that the M1A was really great for so a few years later I traded it for a Beretta and some cash.
Actually, the open top receivers of the M1 and M14 aren't all that:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/02/20/the-m1-garand-dust-mud-1950/
Instead of resorting to snarky egotism, lets use some common sense. The open receiver of the M1 series was prone to severe jamming from dust and muck.
The FNFAL wasn't. That's because it has a shrouded action.
The AR10 had a shrouded action, too.
Try it yourself and report back - set up a trial and see which will repel dirt better. In the day, and somewhat unscientifically, I did the same with some buddies who were trying to convince me that the HK91 was good to go. We went to the local abandoned mine pits where millions of cubic yards of crushed smelter gravel remained, opened the chamber, poured in a handful, and
Closed the bolt and fired a full mag. No stoppages.
I'll take a nice loose rattly bolt and clacking upper to lower fit every day over a tightly fitted work of art.
What do you think Stoner was trying to improve on? The known defect in the M1/M14 open receiver design.
They weren't all that and still aren't.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/02/20/the-m1-garand-dust-mud-1950/
Instead of resorting to snarky egotism, lets use some common sense. The open receiver of the M1 series was prone to severe jamming from dust and muck.
The FNFAL wasn't. That's because it has a shrouded action.
The AR10 had a shrouded action, too.
Try it yourself and report back - set up a trial and see which will repel dirt better. In the day, and somewhat unscientifically, I did the same with some buddies who were trying to convince me that the HK91 was good to go. We went to the local abandoned mine pits where millions of cubic yards of crushed smelter gravel remained, opened the chamber, poured in a handful, and
Closed the bolt and fired a full mag. No stoppages.
I'll take a nice loose rattly bolt and clacking upper to lower fit every day over a tightly fitted work of art.
What do you think Stoner was trying to improve on? The known defect in the M1/M14 open receiver design.
They weren't all that and still aren't.
SR420 I know you take dislike for the M1A personal but it's really not. The M1 frame is better suited for an internal magazine. The 20 round external just makes it feel out of balance. It also has more felt recoil than the Stoner platform. The M1A is an adaption of an old design, it isn't a design in and of itself. The AR platform was always intended to have a box magazine and for that reason (and others) the ergonomics are much better. This doesn't even take into account the problems of dust and dirt because those have been brought up already.
A 1961 Mustang is a great car. Is it as good of a car as a Lamborghini Gallardo? Objectively, no. Could I dump a ton of money into the pony and get it to compete with the Lambo in a drag race? Probably. Would it ever beat it on a real track in a real trial? No. And, at the end of the day, you're better off putting your money into a rifle that's closer to what you want instead of taking something else and modding the heck out of it. Sure you can put a rail over the top side ejection port and all that, but with a Stoner platform you just don't have those problems to begin with. I'm not sure how that's so hard to comprehend.
Nostalgia is a hell of a motivator I know, but at the end of the day, you have to put personal bias aside and admit which platform is better suited for the given task.
A 1961 Mustang is a great car. Is it as good of a car as a Lamborghini Gallardo? Objectively, no. Could I dump a ton of money into the pony and get it to compete with the Lambo in a drag race? Probably. Would it ever beat it on a real track in a real trial? No. And, at the end of the day, you're better off putting your money into a rifle that's closer to what you want instead of taking something else and modding the heck out of it. Sure you can put a rail over the top side ejection port and all that, but with a Stoner platform you just don't have those problems to begin with. I'm not sure how that's so hard to comprehend.
Nostalgia is a hell of a motivator I know, but at the end of the day, you have to put personal bias aside and admit which platform is better suited for the given task.
chris in va
New member
Interesting sand test video including the M1A.
https://www.full30.com/video/6618755f336970e55e6c50c1fe894ff8
https://www.full30.com/video/6618755f336970e55e6c50c1fe894ff8
Such a benign thread title
Such heat it turns out to be lol
I kinda like the garand safety
I kinda like the garand bolt design as far as using the weapon in low light
Easy to check chamber and get stovepipes cleared
Not sure these advantages outweigh anything or not
The garand is simply a loose bolt action that has a rod and cam connected to where a bolt handle might have went
Excuse my non-technical explanations lol
Such heat it turns out to be lol
I kinda like the garand safety
I kinda like the garand bolt design as far as using the weapon in low light
Easy to check chamber and get stovepipes cleared
Not sure these advantages outweigh anything or not
The garand is simply a loose bolt action that has a rod and cam connected to where a bolt handle might have went
Excuse my non-technical explanations lol
I have a M1a Loaded Stainless Steel Barrel... this rifle is a lot of fun to shoot. I would take it anywhere.
How would you trial a weapon? shoot thousands of rounds to find mean time to failure? Roll it in the dirt and fire it?
The only weakness the current batch of SAI M1a's have is their extractor. You pretty much want to have a GI extractor ready to replace. The next real difference could be the durability of the trigger hooks. The design has a long track record for durability.
I have replaced my extractor and put in a GI recoil spring.
How would you trial a weapon? shoot thousands of rounds to find mean time to failure? Roll it in the dirt and fire it?
The only weakness the current batch of SAI M1a's have is their extractor. You pretty much want to have a GI extractor ready to replace. The next real difference could be the durability of the trigger hooks. The design has a long track record for durability.
I have replaced my extractor and put in a GI recoil spring.
The tests were pretty well defined.
Function
Stoppages
Failures
MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures)
Parts breakage
Semi & full auto operation
Adverse conditions
accuracy
Sights & setting of sights
setting (& holding) zero.
ammo
lubrication
maintenance
damage (drops & so on)
Operation by "average soldiers", "experts" & "beginners"
Ease (or not) of failure drills.
Soldier proofing
& so on.
The actual trials were pretty good & comprehensive in many ways. The rigging of them invalidated the whole thing once it became obvious the choice was made before they ever started.