It’s almost done. I’m probably going to make a second attempt at the folding stock. It works great but doesn’t look as good as I want.

I’m also going to mill an ACOG mount that will mount it low in the rear sight.

But here she is.

Attached File
Attached File
Attached File

I regret having to, but I feel compelled to say, that is the ugliest M14 variant I have ever seen.

How much of a chore is it to unlatch the trigger guard?

great, now throw it in the trash

It's best, that this is your last one, better to go out on top!

For real?

That's not even a chin weld for Mama June

ACOG seems it should be mounted further forward.

Looks like a 1980s Choate nightmare.

Are you a giraffe?

Ummm sorry to pile on but I would reconfigure that. After pulling down anyand all posted pictures of course.

I have to believe this is a troll thread.   No one could believe that exacerbateing the already high mounts with a wire folder is at all practical..  it ranks up there with Dr.sLee’s gadget strewn carbine.

rough looking to say the least

I hope it’s the last

It’s beautiful OP. Everything about it.

None. You just stick a punch into the hole and pry it open. Same as the Springfield stocks. These were by far the most comfortable pistol grip stocks ever made for an M14. I have no idea why Sage and company didn't copy it.

Like I said, when the weather cools down I'm going to mill out a mount for the ACOG that will sit in between the elevation and windage adjustment, placing the ACOG just a hair above where the normal sight line would be. That's why it doesn't have sights. It's not too bad as it stands though, pretty much like shooting a PU sniper rifle.

Ah yes, but just wait until version number two of the stock. This was mostly a practice run, with many shortcuts, hence the use of bedding compound to fill in gaps. The final version will look factory, and I daresay will be a slight improvement over the Springfield ones.

That's fukked up like no other.
Dennis

You can hip fire and look though the acog at the same time.

Yuck.

Lol.

Long story short, I had a bunch of M14 parts left over from various projects over the years. When you're building clones, it's almost always cheaper to buy parts kits and complete rifles as opposed to buying them part by part. Tried selling the left over parts and that didn't work, so I decided to build it out.

Mainly just wanted to do something different. I've built many EBRs, and I'm not a fan of the chassis systems in general. They end up like PSG1s in the sense that they're not very shootable outside of having them on a tripod. The pistol grips are also a major shortcoming, and that's why the original Springfield bush stocks are the best. But they're beyond unobtanium these days, so I had to retrofit an old GI stock to fit the folder. Like I said, I have a more ambitious design in mind that will look factory, but I want to wait until Fall before I spend that much time in the shop. This was mostly just a dry run to see if it could be done.

As for the ACOG, like I said, my long term plan is to mill a mount for it that will sit between the two rear sight ears. That will put the ACOG just a little above the natural line of sight. Again, that's why it doesn't have sights, because I had planned on using an optic from the beginning. When you're building an M14, you normally align the barrel so that the sights are lined up, and then inevitably you have to finagle the op rod guide so that the op rod is square to the piston, which isn't ideal for a few reasons. And even then, you're still left with the whole turd sandwich that is the M14 front sight. It either has to go on the flash hider or the gas lock, both of which are absolutely terrible places to put a front sight. And the flash hider being the more ideal of those two-because you can't really predict how the gas lock will line up while installing the barrel (and it's going to change if you ever remove it)-that limits you to a GI flash hider, which isn't great for accuracy because of the asinine method they chose for attaching it.

Thus, an optic is greatly preferred, and of course there's no viable provision for using iron sights in conjunction with any optic, because M14 and quick detach don't exist in the same universe. Any decent M14 scope base is a lengthy installation procedure, thereby rendering your iron sights useless. And that rear sight pocket is a great place to mount things. Thus, no sights. I aligned the barrel to be naturally square with the op rod. Note also that the ACOG mount I've designed will place it low enough that the backup sights (or RMR) will actually serve a purpose. The height above bore will actually be less than an ACOG sitting on an AR.

It will also allow stripper clips to be used, since the ACOG won't hang over the receiver. So in that sense it will be a scout rifle that's actually got some utility to it. Once I get the stock modification process down, I might even do a national match stock and reinforce and bed it to see if I can get the accuracy up. It has a Criterion barrel, so it's definitely got the potential, and I headspaced it just a tiny bit shy of .632, so it's a decently tight chamber for being an automatic. In the end, it will be lighter, more compact, and probably far more accurate than the Mk14 Mod 0 I built. And it's way more shootable. It's balanced well, and it's light and handy. I've also got plans to modify a Dragunov cheek rest for the wire stock, which will give you a full cheek weld looking through the custom ACOG mount, and a chin weld using the sights or RMR atop the ACOG.

You can laugh all you want now, but when it's done ya'll are gonna be envious of it.

Ummmm, ok ?
Dennis

Seriously dude?

I see why, that thing is hard on the eyes.

Monica.jpg

All that and it still isn’t a SCAR 17.

Steampunk M14. Sorry man, hideous. Looks like a "rat rod" version.

You took a Rembrandt masterpiece & turned it into a Romper Room finger painting.

Okay, first of all, comparing any M14 to a Rembrandt is a wildly irresponsible analogy.

Second of all, it's not done yet! The stock is a prototype, and the ACOG mount is in the works. I simply have the ACOG mounted with what I had available on hand to determine if it would have enough eye relief to mount on a 308. Although that is actually SEI's official ACOG mount, so I guess if you have any criticisms of it in particular you should take it up with them. Though to be fair, technically it should be mounted directly without the picatinny rail, although that does place it too far forward and only lowers it by maybe a centimeter, so that's arguably a better way to do it.

ACOGs are designed for ARs and other rifles with straight-line stocks.  Therefore, ACOGs will always mount high on a M14/M1A.  But there are mounts that still allow it to be workable with a chin weld (or a cheek weld if you add a cheek riser on the stock).

Like this:


Whereas your current setup is so tall that it requires an armpit weld.  That's not conducive to accuracy.

I look forward to seeing what you're able to come up with for a lower, rear-sight-level mount.

The eye relief is the major issue. That guy in the photo I guarantee you can't see more than a little 1 cm circle with a huge black ring around it.

The trick is to get it low and far enough back that you can both get a cheek weld and get up close enough to it. The BM59 paratrooper stock helps a lot because it has a naturally more inline design, so it brings the rifle down lower by about 1.5". And it just kind of happens that the ACOG mounted in the rear sight pocket gives you the perfect eye relief.

Some ACOGs have long eye relief some have short it depends on the model specifically.  The one in the pic I bet the guy has proper eye relief as I think that model is a longer eye relief model.

Looks like a TA31 to me. 1.5" I think. Even the 6x is only 2.5 inches or something like that, and he's a good 10" off it. I would be surprised if he can see anything at all.

Is this a parody thread?

A parody of what???

Having owned a few ACOGs, I can tell you from first hand experience the eye relief does not match the written numbers on the TA33, TA55, TA44, or the TA110, and is generally more forgiving than the provided technical data. I do not have personal experience with the TA31, but I understand the eye relief is extremely short on that one particular model.

There's some wiggle room, but you definitely lose field of view if you're more than about 1.75" away from it. At 2.5" or so you're at about 50% I would say. There's a very narrow sweet spot with ACOGs on M14s where you have a full field of view but you aren't getting scope eye.

Pretty sure Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder built one just like it......

Optic mounts make a difference.

Those BM59 stocks are very uncomfortable to shoot if you put many rds down range, they are a killer on your cheek.

Attached File
As a fellow M1a owner.....

I think the stock has potential.

Can the ACOG ever get low enough?  Maybe go for a LPVO?

You can get an optic to sit low in an EBR...here is mine with a 56MM objective...the cheek is on level two...uber comfy...the objective has about 3mm of clearance.

CASM mount is the ticket!

Good luck OP...looking at your first pics...I have no flipping idea how that is going to be useful.

No, ... just NO.

M1s and M1As/M14s are best suited to being shot with the irons as issued, due to the nature of the GI stock and the cheek-weld problem created by typical over-receiver mounts, and side mounts (as on M1Cs & M1Ds).

Otherwise, you have to virtually turn these rifles into ergonomic monstrosities  - with all manner of add-ons   -  to make them work with running any sort of magnified optic.

The only optic/mount combo that seems to make sense for the M1/M1A platform (to me anyway) is a micro-RDS mounted in place of the rear sight, which keeps the optic low in relation to your sighting eye and doesn't disturb your normal cheek-weld while shooting. Nor is it weighty. (See YT link below).

First-round hit probability is substantially increased even without magnification. However, instead of the RMR unit that GarandThumb runs in the vid, my choice would be Leupold's Delta Point Pro, which allows for battery changes from the top of the unit without having to remove it from the mount or the gun.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=er__eN-Xm_M

And as far as running magnified optics on the M1/M1A platforms with their G.I. stocks (i.e., without going to something aftermarket, like a Sage) about the only set-up I've tried that works is a low-power IER/'scout'-type optic mounted low on a forward rail. Not over 4x on the magnification.

In fact, for shots on hog and deer-size game (or larger), and certainly 2-legged human predators, out to 300-350yds, 4x is plenty to put a bullet into fur or a bad-guy.

Being low-mounted, the forward optic lines up perfectly with your sighting eye using normal cheekweld, and since it's not hanging over the receiver, the action is clear for reloading clips (in the case of an M1) or for re-charging a magazine with stripper clips (in the case of an M1A). Yeah, it's a bit Old School, but it works ... and it does so without making the rifle look like a botched abortion.

The real problem with the forward set up  - depending on whose rail mount and scope you're running and whether it's mounted on a FULL-SIZE M1/M1A or one of the 'chopped' variants, e.g., S.A.'s SOCOM or Shuff's 16.1" Mini-G  -  is that it adds noticeable forward weight.

Running a RDS or mini-RDS (T1/H1) on the forward rail, instead of, say, a Burris 3x or Leupold 2.5x Scout Scope, will save on weight, but at the expense of magnification.

Also in the mix is the fact that many folks are simply not used to shooting a rifle with a forward-mount/scout-scope set-up, and won't take the time to practice with it, the way they've done for years with a more traditional scope-over-receiver set-up, starting with the scoped .22 they first shot when young ...

But I can tell you from experience, the forward-mounted option for running an optic on the M1/M1A platform does work, and you can make effective first-round hits with it.  Again, this set-up isn't for punching sub-MOA groups on paper at 400-yds; it's for putting down deer & hog-size animals or other 'targets' of relatively large size and weight. It's a 'practical' type of accuracy standard, rather than one that's purely about MOA-'precision.'

I'm not really disputing what you said but I have one of these on mine with a 3-9 Scope and I find it perfectly comfortable.

https://www.fulton-armory.com/cheek-rest-adjustbale-kydex-m14-m1a-fa-by-tacpro.aspx

Op, I see what you’re trying to do, I think. Rough draft for sure,  but you gotta start somewhere.

My suspicion is that you’re going to get a better result if you “meet in the middle” rather than just try to lower the ACOG mount.

What I mean is, if you put some kind of cheek rest on that stock, along with lowering the ACOG, you should be able to get the cheek weld you’re after.

FWIW, I used M14s when I was in the Army. I saw M14s with a variety of magnified optics, to include ACOGs. Most of them ended up with some kind of cheek rest, but I never saw any problems with eye relief.

Based on the look of that atrocity, I think the general conciseness is that's a wise choice.

M1A turned into an EBR works juuuuust fine and its one lethal piece of tool within 700m...ergos are actually quite good with a Sage chassis...

CASM mount is superior...and you retain iron sight capability out to 0-250m as a backup...

If you actually read what I said above, ... all these 'tactical' mods result in a sucky M1A/M14 from an ergonomic standpoint, unless you resort to an aftermarket/custom set-up like the SAGE stock.

Ah, no.

By the way, the forward mount set-up allows you to retain iron-sight capability too -   and with less weight and without having to 'Giraffe-neck' your head all over the stock just to get a sight-picture.

And by the way, most real-world engagements are well inside 700-meters, and more likely inside 300-meters.

You are going to engage targets with irons at 700m?!?

The CASM mount is the best. Period. It has back up sights that work out to 250meters...and I stated that the EBR is good to go out to 700m.

CASM weighs like 3 oz...hardly any weight but you gain and retain capabilities while having 4 points of contact for a rock solid mount.

It doesn’t cause me any “neck” issues. I have an EBR....it’s the same height as most aftermarket saddle scope mounts...

Now that there is a bad ass M14!

My mount will be pretty much just like those RDS mounts you're talking about. Just a tiny bit higher, like .75 inches, which is more than compensated for by the inline nature of the alpine stocks.