M1a vs ar10 historic vs present

[Mr.RevolverGuy]

The M1A was designed by Elmer C. Ballance of the Springfield Armory Inc., in 1974. The AR-10 rifle was developed by Eugene Stoner in 1955 and was manufactured by Armalite.

That’s right the AR10 is older than the M1A you read it right. Confused yet? The M1A is the civilianized version of the M14. The M14 which was designed in 1954 and was meant to be a replacement for the M1 Garand. Eugene Stoner tried everything he could at the time to prevent this from happening with the AR10 as the M14 competitor. The AR10 could not pass military trials with the barrel rupturing during testing. Therefore history is created with the M14 being the replacement for the M1 Garand. This makes the AR10 the father to the AR15, and older than the M1A.

There are many differences and similarities between these rifles which I will cover in another article. In short you can think of the AR10 capable of being highly customized while the M1A is very limited. Mounting a scope on an AR10 took all of 5 minutes with the right tools. On the other hand the M1A took well over 20minutes and needed a rubber mallet according to instructions to mount properly.

The barrel twist rate on the M1A is 1/11 twist rate which I have found is not suitable for heavier bullets above 168gr. The AR10 has many different barrel options but most have a 1/10 twist rate which seems to do really well at distance with 178gr bullets.

Having just mounted the scope on the M1A I grabbed some 155gr rounds loaded with IMR4895 and headed to the range. IMR4895 is the proper powder with the right burn rate for the M1A and duplicates what the military used. The proper burn rate of powder is critical for safety and care to the op rod and action of the M1A. I have also found that the AR10 performs well with the same powder which makes it easy to reload 308 for both rifles.

After getting the M1A on paper and zeroed, it was only right to test accuracy from both.

Which Semi Auto Platform would you chose today for your use?
The M1A and the AR-10 use the same caliber and their platforms were both designed for battle. Both these rifles are widely used and it’s quite hard to make a fair choice. The M1A is just so much fun especially when shooting from the standing or prone position with a leather sling. Though it does jump around and recoil a bit more from the bench. The AR10 on the other hand is softer recoiling and much more customizable.

 

[DMK]

The M14 which was designed in 1954 and was meant to be a replacement for the M1 Garand. Eugene Stoner tried everything he could at the time to prevent this from happening with the AR10 as the M14 competitor. The AR10 could not pass military trials with the barrel rupturing during testing. Therefore history is created with the M14 being the replacement for the M1 Garand. This makes the AR10 the father to the AR15, and older than the M1A.

To be fair, the M14 (T44) was billed as an upgrade to the M1 Garand. Though it turned out to be much more complicated and involved than that, it mostly shares the same design proven in the M1. (Still it took the US longer to develop and refine it than the Italians did for the BM59)

The AR10 was designed from a relatively clean sheet of paper (though all modern gun designs borrow from their predecessors). As far as adoption, it was doomed from the start even if it would have been a superior design. It was just too different and there was too much bias against it. Same for the T-48 (FAL).

That said, the original AR10 was not the same gun that we have today. It still needed a lot of refinement at the time of the US trials and still even at the time of US adoption when it was chambered in 5.56.

In short you can think of the AR10 capable of being highly customized while the M1A is very limited. Mounting a scope on an AR10 took all of 5 minutes with the right tools. On the other hand the M1A took well over 20minutes and needed a rubber mallet according to instructions to mount properly.

The AR10/AR15 was a design well ahead of its time in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It has proven to be very adaptable to more modern technologies and ways of thinking. (we don't even shoot rifles the same way as we did when it was designed). Things like free floating the barrel, 1913 rails, collapsible stocks, different barrel lengths and gas system lengths weren't even considered inn its design, yet are commonplace today in both military and civilian versions.

The M14/M1A on the other hand has pretty much stagnated in design. While stocks, scope mounts and other accessories have been developed to overcome its limitations, the gun itself has not changed to adapt to the times.

Both are great guns, but the M14 was the final evolution of a 1920s design. The AR10 was just the beginning of much more modern rifles.

 

[agtman]

DMK - very well said. Excellent synopsis of the two weapons.

 

[pblanc]

Thanks for the post.

I was born during the Korean War and somehow the M14 (or M1A) always struck me as being what a military main battle rifle "should" look like.

I have read that the accuracy of the issued M14s was frequently lacking, often failing to meet even a 4 MOA standard. Your results with the M1A seem to belie that assertion.

Now here is a question for perhaps another thread: should I buy an M1A or a CMP M1 Garand?

 

[agtman]

Now here is a question for perhaps another thread: should I buy an M1A or a CMP M1 Garand?

CMP M1 Garand all day.

Buy two Service Grades - one S.A. and, say, one Winchester, HRA, or IHC - and never look back. Keep the CMP documentation (certificates & receipts) somewhere safe where it won't be lost or destroyed.

Then clean your M1s good, lube 'em right, and get 'em out to the range and zeroed.

A 200-yd zero at a minimum; a 300-yd zero is mo' better.

You can thank me later.

 

[44 AMP]

The M1A was designed by Elmer C. Ballance of the Springfield Armory Inc., in 1974.

I realize that this may be technically accurate, but it implies something that didn't happen. I think perhaps "developed" would be a better choice of term.

Saying someome designed the rifle (or some team) implies that they designed every part of if, and that's not the case with the M1A.

Only the receiver was designed by civilians, and only differs from the M14 in lacking the mounting stud for the full auto parts. This was deliberate, to get around any issues with it being designed as a machine gun (which is how the M14 is classified by the ATF).

All the early M1As were assembled with GI parts on the civilian receiver.

As mentioned, the AR-10 you see today isn't the same rifle it originally was, there have been a lot of changes and "upgrades".

One of the big problems discussing the two rifles is making blanket statements about function and accuracy. I guarantee you what ever you say about those things, good or bad, you can find individual rifles of both types that don't conform to the statement.

One fellow hears how the M14s didn't shoot well, I've always heard that the M14 was, on average, the most accurate rack grade .30 caliber rifle we ever issued. And "rack grade" is another point to consider.

You can make the valid point how the M14 isn't easily scoped, and not modular where the AR 10 is. Ok. Do remember what each one was built to do. And where having the ability to bolt on all kinds of extras is important, to you.

A few decades of working the bugs out of things can take you amazing places. The AR design has benefited hugely from this. The M1A, not so much, because it didn't need so much, many of the potential "bugs" in the design were worked out with the M1 Garand. Which is not to say the M14 didn't have its share, it certainly did. Some of them were created by unrealistic expectations.

Around a decade or so ago, I had personal experience with 3 different AR 10 pattern rifles. All shot very well for accuracy, all had feed issues due to the magazines, but that doesn't mean all AR10s have feed issues. Just some of them, like every other gun, some are great, some are .. less so.

Both are great guns, but the M14 was the final evolution of a 1920s design. The AR10 was just the beginning of much more modern rifles.

This is very well put. And I would add not just designs but design and manufacturing philosophies as well.

yes, its fine to think of the M14 as the final refinement of the Garand, both of which were designed and built using the ancient and venerable method of making a solid durable long lasting firearm, used in making civilian firearms.

WWII taught the lesson that the differently built weapons, were cheaper, lasted long enough in combat and worked well enough to do the job. And could often be made in greater numbers.

In that regard the M14 is a hold over, the AR began with those lessons in front of it.

 

[Mobuck]

Scoping the M-14/M1A has always been problematic. By the time you get a solid scope mount that clears the rear sight, maintaining a solid cheekweld is difficult or impossible.
Expecting good accuracy w/o a solid cheekweld is illogical.

 

[DMK]

Now here is a question for perhaps another thread: should I buy an M1A or a CMP M1 Garand?

I agree with Agtman. Of course the correct answer is get both, but if you can only buy one, the CMP Garand will be a real deal retired military rifle that may have "been there and done that". The M1A or even the most correct M14 you can build on USGI parts(excluding extremely expensive NFA registered guns) will only be a clone due to the fact that real M14 receivers are machine guns. Besides, there were a limited (though large) number of Garands made. They are still making M1As today.

Same for AKs, FALs, G3s, M16s, etc. One can build a beautiful facsimile with surplus parts kits, but it will never be 100% correct like an M1 Garand, M1 carbine, or even a Warsaw Pact SKS. That's the sad truth for collectors of rifles designed after the 1940's.

 

[Bart B.]

Mr Revolver Guy says the barrel twist rate on the M1A is 1/11 twist rate which he found is not suitable for heavier bullets above 168g.

Frankfort Arsenal learned the M14's 1:12 twist shot arsenal 173 grain match bullets more accurate than Garand 1:10 twist barrels.

Military teams shooting M14NM rifles with 1:12 twist barrels shot 180 and 185 grain match bullets most accurate.

Navy converted Garands to 7.62 NATO match grade with 1:12 twist barrels and handloaded 190 grain match bullets were probably the most accurate service rifle for NRA long range matches until 2012 when the US Army convinced the NRA to allow AR10 in 308 Win be classified as service rifles.

 

[Bart B.]

DMK,

M14NM receiver based rifles are not classified as machine guns, so states the ATF. Proved in a court case where ill informed agents confiscated a TRW M14NM presentation grade rifle then trashed it.

 

[Mr.RevolverGuy]

Bart B

We all know rifles can be picky I have found this particular sample shot anything above 168gr like a shot gun. I most likely had not found the right load for heavy bullets yet for this rifle but thats for sure what this sample tells me.

Not that this is gospel but here is what Shilen recommends for their barrels

.308
- 7" * for heavy VLD bullets and/or subsonic ammo.
- 8" for bullets heavier than 220 gr.
- 8" Ratchet rifled 4 groove
- 10" for bullets up to 220 gr.
- 10" * Ratchet rifled 4 groove
- 12" for bullets up to 170 gr.
- 13" * Ratchet rifled 4 groove
- 14" * for bullets up to 168gr.
- 15" * for bullets up to 150 gr.
- 17" * for bullets up to 125 gr.

 

[Bart B.]

Are you reloading fired cases from your M1A?

Regarding Shilen's 30 caliber twist suggestions, most are way off from what 308 Win ammo produces best accuracy with.

 

[Mr.RevolverGuy]

I keep my M1A brass separate from the rest of my 308 brass so it has only been fired in this rifle. During my reloading process I only bump the shoulder back .003

I do not want to turn this into a holy war but bullet size meaning length plays a big part in stabilization with twist rate also.

Wanted this to be a thoughtful fun topic for everyone.

 

[DMK]

M14NM receiver based rifles are not classified as machine guns, so states the ATF. Proved in a court case where ill informed agents confiscated a TRW M14NM presentation grade rifle then trashed it.

That's interesting. I did not even know there were special military NM M14 receivers.

Did those get out to the civilian world through the CMP?

 

[Bart B.]

DMK,

The M14NM rifles nor receivers were never sold to civialians through the CMP as far as i know.

I think Smith Enterprises made the best semiauto M1A receiver civialian versions. Best of either with commercial match barrels and commercial match ammo or handloaded new commercial cases would test about 4 inches at 600 yards. Same accuracy with Sierra 168 or 180 HPMK rebulleted M118 match ammo.

Best lots of 7.62 M118 match ammo tested 10 to 12 inches at 600 shot from bolt action test barrels, about 15 inches from M1, M1A or M14NM rebuilt rifles.

 

[davidsog]

Now here is a question for perhaps another thread: should I buy an M1A or a CMP M1 Garand?

Both if you can afford it. The Garand first as they are becoming more and more scarce as well as pricy.

 

[COSteve]

I have a mid-length gas AR15 carbine and also an A4 rifle but not an AR10. Why? I don't like the basic bulky design of the AR at all. Ergonomically it's awkward as well compared to a more traditional rifle. I know the AR is the Barbie of rifles but I've tried for decades to like it but just can't.

I was introduced to the M14 in Basic Training back in '67 and thought it was great having spent my youth hunting with a Model 70 in 30-06. The first time I laid eyes on a M16 was in RVN and luckily for me, it was a guard weapon as I was a Tank Commander and didn't use it around my M-48.

Despite the negative comments, the M14 was a significant improvement to the M1 Garand and one of the primary reasons it was not kept in service longer is that it was not readily controllable in full auto by most troops as the recoil was too heavy. The Army removed the selector switch from most M14s making them semi-auto only. Another 'problem' with the M14 was that it was too big and too heavy for the tiny South Vietnamese and the longer range potential was not needed in the heavy jungles of SE Asia.

Stoner's original version in 7.62x51 was slightly better in recoil control when used full auto but still too unwieldy for general use by troops. This, in addition to the fact that it wasn't durable enough made it a non starter. Further, the Army (and Hap Arnold of the Air Force) had become enamored with the cheaper and lighter 5.56 cartridge.

None of that is an indictment of the 7.62x51 and the M14 as it was envisioned to be a Main Battle Rifle to counter the Soviet Union and Warsaw troops in Europe where longer range and heavier hitting small arms are needed. As shown repeatedly in the Middle East, the M16 / M-4 is too light a weapon for the longer ranges of open warfare vs their use in jungle environments.

So, it's not a surprise that I have a couple of M1 Garands, a couple of M1 Carbines, a NM M1A, and a Mini-14 set up to mimic my M1A. I love shooting real 'wood and steel' rifles and while I've owned my ARs for near 20 yrs, I still can't get to like those plastic toy rifles.

 

[Road_Clam]

When i was pondering over purchasing a .30
Semi something, there was so many configuration choices. I already had a CMP M1 Special and had developed a real passion for vintage military rifles. My gun club has a few loaner M1s and M1A and i was able to shoot an M1A for a few hrs. Thats all it took . I had to have one. A week later i purchased new productuon SA M1A Loaded. The nostalgic feel and shooting experience you feel with the M1s and M1As is so uplifting and gratifying. If you dont have an m1/m1a in your collection your missing out on a very fun and unique experience vs. typical modern weapons.

 

[Mr.RevolverGuy]

Well said Road_Clam it is often hard to explain that feeling to someone who has never shot one

 

[44 AMP]

Despite the negative comments, the M14 was a significant improvement to the M1 Garand and one of the primary reasons it was not kept in service longer is that it was not readily controllable in full auto by most troops as the recoil was too heavy. The Army removed the selector switch from most M14s making them semi-auto only. Another 'problem' with the M14 was that it was too big and too heavy for the tiny South Vietnamese and the longer range potential was not needed in the heavy jungles of SE Asia.

The primary reason the M14 was not retained in service was a "political" decision, and while the original rifle's failure to be the master of all trades its proponents envisioned it to be, it was a good RIFLE.

The underlying flaw in the idea of it being a select fire weapon was the (to me) unexplainable failure of anyone in design authority to recognize that while an 18lb BAR with a cyclic rate of 550rpm can be managed, a 9lb rifle with a cyclic rate of 750rpm is almost impossible to master.

The cyclic rate of the M14 empties the 20 rnd magazine in 1.6 second. Even experts have trouble getting more than a couple hits on a 25m target with that high a firing rate shooting 7.62x51mm NATO out of a 9lb rifle and the rest of us, don't do close to that well. I've shot the M14 on full auto. It was an educational experience.

The big reason the removed the selector switch from most M14s was to keep the troops from burning through all their ammo too fast (and hitting very little)

Anyway, while the M14 did not meet all the hopes, it really didn't FAIL at anything. The MacNamara defense dept decided the 5.56 and the AR would be superior (which is a whole story by itself) and so, despite objections, that where we went.

As to the M14 (at about 9lbs) being too much for the small Vietnamese soldiers, having personally seen them packing 18lb BARS and walking our butts into the ground while doing it, I take leave to doubt the statement a little bit.