Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:00:57 AM EDT
Got rid of my Arsenal SAM-7 this month and picked up a NIB Springfield M1A Scout. Not saying the AK isn't a good gun, but it doesn't hold a candle to the M1A IMO. Why the military ever went away from this is beyond me. I found ammo is cheap enough, 940 rounds of South African for $140 bucks. Shoots great and parts are plentiful, however expensive. I will still hang on to my KRINKOV. That will at least keep me in good graces on this web page.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:05:01 AM EDT
wow.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:06:07 AM EDT
you'll be back after you have to chase your extractor down the firing line
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:11:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
you'll be back after you have to chase your extractor down the firing line



haha o man..

M1s and AKs have different roles...each fill them very well. They are in totally different catagories
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:14:28 AM EDT
I never got the idea behind a 16" barrel M1A.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:17:52 AM EDT
I've been on the M1A bandwagon a few times but always trade them off after a while.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:48:40 AM EDT
I just went though a couple of M1A's, a Bush anda Standard. Both had quitea bit of USGI parts. The the non GI trigger sucked,mushy vague,the USGI one was much better. It was crisp and lighter. Of course a USGI tg is a $125 item.

It's hard to love a weapon whose good mags run $25 a pop,whose good parts are unobtanium(USGI op-rods $200,bolts $150 etc.) If your gonna go .308 I thinkthe FAL is a much better platform.

BTW
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:49:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
you'll be back after you have to chase your extractor down the firing line




Link Posted: 1/22/2006 11:04:10 AM EDT
Should have got a Norinco M1A for $400 a few years back. Oddly enough as I read, the commies make as good if not a better weapon for 1/4 the price. The two rifles are in different categories, apples and oranges.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 11:08:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By firedog51d:
I just went though a couple of M1A's, a Bush anda Standard. Both had quitea bit of USGI parts. The the non GI trigger sucked,mushy vague,the USGI one was much better. It was crisp and lighter. Of course a USGI tg is a $125 item.

It's hard to love a weapon whose good mags run $25 a pop,whose good parts are unobtanium(USGI op-rods $200,bolts $150 etc.) If your gonna go .308 I thinkthe FAL is a much better platform.

BTW



The only thing the FAL has going for it is a easier clean ( slightly ) and parts are alot cheaper. USGI parts don't break. After market ( SA Inc ) parts are decent but not USGI standards . You did very well in choseing an M1A . Yes SA Inc has been known to put out of spec Extractors in them. I would get a USGI bolt over haul kit. Normally not very much . $30 ??? been a couple of years since I bought any. I like the FAL also but it just don't compair to a M14 . IMO . A M14 is a nice and serious piece of equipment. Lighlt gease her and she'll run for a long time. The 7.62x51 ( .308 ) is a serious round. An excellent round. You did good. WarDawg.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 11:11:18 AM EDT
we morn the passing of the sam-7, we can only pray it found a good home
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 11:12:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 11:13:27 AM EDT
Every service rifle collector should have one, but thats where it stops for me, I prefer the AK or a FAL over the M1A any day. Depending on what type of shooting you do and what type of collecting you pursue in this hobby i say buy one try it out, you can always come back to a good old AK which will never fail ya. Heres the only pic i have of my M1A, its a safe queen soon to be a vault queen. McM
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 11:22:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motorcityman:
Every service rifle collector should have one, but thats where it stops for me, I prefer the AK or a FAL over the M1A any day. Depending on what type of shooting you do and what type of collecting you pursue in this hobby i say buy one try it out, you can always come back to a good old AK which will never fail ya. Heres the only pic i have of my M1A, its a safe queen soon to be a vault queen. McM
i7.photobucket.com/albums/y300/onebigjoe/Evolution001.jpg



BLASHEMY....a photo with no AKs in it. Burn him at the stake arrrhhhhhhhhhh.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 11:40:44 AM EDT
MIA's = Ak-47's - both cool , just dont hold the M1A near yer crotch when bumpfirin !!! (ouch!!!)
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 11:44:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OldTroop:BLASHEMY....a photo with no AKs in it. Burn him at the stake arrrhhhhhhhhhh.


"Arrrhhhhhhhhhh" what are you a pirate
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 11:50:13 AM EDT
I have an SA (pre ban, whooo) M1A, full length, tricked out EXACTLY like in the movie "Black Hawk Down" with desert camo and aimpoint. Looks good leanin' in the corner next to my three AR's as I go play with my AK's!!!

Link Posted: 1/22/2006 11:57:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 12:03:18 PM EDT by JaketheSnake]

Originally Posted By No1Here:
I never got the idea behind in front of, or stand to the side of a 16" barrel M1A.


fixed it your ya.

I know this from the our night shoot.
Jake.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 12:03:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 12:09:09 PM EDT by JaketheSnake]
I understand you Mogwa, theres only so much that can be done with a AK. It is what it is. Besides I need a battle rifle. I've shot the FALs, there OK. But that's the best I'll say about them. Next I need an M1A with an aimpoint on it.

The M1A is an excellent rifle you will be very pleased.

BTW I know this is the AK forum......but damn! A little hostile towards a rifle that still sees alot of service around the world with great results..

[Martha Stewart voice ] The M1A it's a good thing. [Martha Stewart voice]
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 12:25:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motorcityman:

Originally Posted By OldTroop:BLASHEMY....a photo with no AKs in it. Burn him at the stake arrrhhhhhhhhhh.


"Arrrhhhhhhhhhh" what are you a pirate



can you smell it?

M1A's are nice.
I prefer the full rifle size and a forged reciever to a cast reciever and a 16 inch bbl.
Try to swap out all the non USGI parts you can for GI parts.

Oh yea, let's see some pics!
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 12:35:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 12:37:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mogwa:
Why the military ever went away from this is beyond me.



Because it's completely and totally obsolete?
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 3:23:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodinert:

Originally Posted By Mogwa:
Why the military ever went away from this is beyond me.



Because it's completely and totally obsolete?



I always love these statements......they usually come from the AR crowd when Im talking about my AK though (most dont really know that the AR is about as old of a design as the AK).

Assuming you own an AK47 you are aware the design is of that rifle is 59 years old right.......

Also what really innovative "designs" have come about in guns in the last 50 years. We are still using box feed, automatic rifles rifles just like we were 80+ years ago.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 3:41:32 PM EDT
I love the 308 round, but can't afford a Galil,Valmet or an M1A, so I went the cheap route. I bought a 16" Saiga in 308. Short, light and powerful. Now that Tromix is selling the 20rd magazines, I have the best of both worlds.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 3:44:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodinert:

Originally Posted By Mogwa:
Why the military ever went away from this is beyond me.



Because it's completely and totally obsolete?




OH...So that is why the US Army is pulling them out of the warehouse to issue to our Joe's. Lets give them an obsolete weapon so that the Taliban and Insurgency has more of a fighting chance. Reliability...accuracy....range......and stopping power never become obsolete.

Loved my SAM-7 and still have a bulgarian Krink........I just like the M1A alot better

P.S. The Scout has an 18 inch barrel.

Link Posted: 1/22/2006 3:52:14 PM EDT
I am surprised that you got rid of the sam-7 for the M1A. From the posts that I have read here, the accuracy is about the same.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 4:09:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Templar:
Nothing wrong with a M14 and a whole lot right. You should still have an AK though.


img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/SmithM14close.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/SmithM14.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Orrock3.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Orrock5.jpg



Yea, he said he was keeping his Krink, I would say he is still in "the good".
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 6:04:06 PM EDT
For those who are interested this copy of a reply that came from Pat Rogers relative a discussion over on 10-8 forums. The discussion was about the M14.
__________________________________________________________________________________
The M14 platform has taken on almost mythical proportions-
people forget that is had the 2nd shortest life of all US service rifles.
The gunzine business that now touts the M14 is the same business that absolutely hammered the M14 in the early 60's
It reached such a fever pitch that when i was issued an M14 at Parris Island in 1963, the Drill Instructors were required to comment on the fact that we had the very best rifle- otherwise we wouldn't be issued it (yeah, right!)
I carried an M14 in combat- all of Rob's comments are pertinent. It is heavy, long, un-ergonomic(i'm sure that having a mechanical safety near the trigger was very sophisticated in 1936, but it is stupid now).
The M14 type had a place as a competitive rifle up until the early 90's when the Service teams were mandated to take M16 types. Civilian shooters had done their homework previously, and the transition the the 16 showed that it was significantly more accurate, less expensive to build and a whole lot less to maintain- and a lot easier to shoot.
Now i'll be the first to say that High Power has as much to do with fighting as Bonsai does, but on the precision end of the spectrum there is some crossover.
M80 ball offers advantages at distance, but is not super effective at closer range.
There is no free lunch, and in spite of the euro makers chants, everything is a compromise.
In 1918 ( 1918 !)the German army recognized the need for a more compact select fire weapon firing an intermediate cartridge. Loosing the war put it on the back burner, and having a madman micro manager as a leader during the second "unpleasantness" kept thier ordnance guys from fielding the MP44 (7.92x33mm vs 7.92x57mm (typo corrected by the idiot typing- thanks Matt!))in numbers until the end of the war.
In the meantime, US Ordnance looked at a modified M1 Rifle firing their version of an intermediate cartridge (7.62x51mm vs 7.62x63mm). The shortsighted peple were thinking with yellow glasses on, something that has been onging.
Lastly, their has always been a disconnect between those that use and those that make policy (that is not to say that stupidity and brilliance do not co exist on both sides.
At the turn of the century, the Chief of Ordnance was the autocratic BG Crozier, who was personally biased against Col Issac Lewis (inventor of the Lewis Gun) and John M. Browning. Crozier was known to have repeatedly said "The technician knows best what the combat troops require". When BG Crozier was finally declared incompetent and relieved of his command on December22, 1917, his successor, MG Clarence Williams took a much more enlightened view, saying simply "If the fighting men want elephants, we get them elephants".
(The Browning Machine Gun, Goldsmith- Collector Grade Publications)

The M14 has a role, albeit limited, in the fight. The Rock/SOPMOD stock puts the 14 in a new light, though the stupid safety is still in the same place. The Sage stock is being used in the EBR, and modified M14's are used as DMR's (and have been for a long time). The 14 is an accurate platform, though the higher degree of accuracy usually requires a much higher maintainence component.
I too don't think that the M4/ 5.56x45mm is perfect by any means, but is is waaay better then anything else fielded right now.

--------------------
S/F
Pat sends
Never Forget Those Who Died
Never Forget Those Who Killed Them

Edited by Pat_Rogers (12/01/05 06:29 AM)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 6:28:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mogwa:

Originally Posted By eodinert:

Originally Posted By Mogwa:
Why the military ever went away from this is beyond me.



Because it's completely and totally obsolete?




OH...So that is why the US Army is pulling them out of the warehouse to issue to our Joe's.



It's all they've got in a self loading .308 platform, and they don't have to buy them, that's why. It's still obsolete. Just like the AKs the haji's are shooting back with.



Reliability...accuracy....range......and stopping power never become obsolete.



But M14s did. Besides, accuracy is not issued along with the M14. You have to throw money at them to make them shoot well.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 6:30:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hagakure:
For those who are interested this copy of a reply that came from Pat Rogers relative a discussion over on 10-8 forums. The discussion was about the M14.
__________________________________________________________________________________
The M14 platform has taken on almost mythical proportions-
people forget that is had the 2nd shortest life of all US service rifles.
The gunzine business that now touts the M14 is the same business that absolutely hammered the M14 in the early 60's
It reached such a fever pitch that when i was issued an M14 at Parris Island in 1963, the Drill Instructors were required to comment on the fact that we had the very best rifle- otherwise we wouldn't be issued it (yeah, right!)
I carried an M14 in combat- all of Rob's comments are pertinent. It is heavy, long, un-ergonomic(i'm sure that having a mechanical safety near the trigger was very sophisticated in 1936, but it is stupid now).
The M14 type had a place as a competitive rifle up until the early 90's when the Service teams were mandated to take M16 types. Civilian shooters had done their homework previously, and the transition the the 16 showed that it was significantly more accurate, less expensive to build and a whole lot less to maintain- and a lot easier to shoot.
Now i'll be the first to say that High Power has as much to do with fighting as Bonsai does, but on the precision end of the spectrum there is some crossover.
M80 ball offers advantages at distance, but is not super effective at closer range.
There is no free lunch, and in spite of the euro makers chants, everything is a compromise.
In 1918 ( 1918 !)the German army recognized the need for a more compact select fire weapon firing an intermediate cartridge. Loosing the war put it on the back burner, and having a madman micro manager as a leader during the second "unpleasantness" kept thier ordnance guys from fielding the MP44 (7.92x33mm vs 7.92x57mm (typo corrected by the idiot typing- thanks Matt!))in numbers until the end of the war.
In the meantime, US Ordnance looked at a modified M1 Rifle firing their version of an intermediate cartridge (7.62x51mm vs 7.62x63mm). The shortsighted peple were thinking with yellow glasses on, something that has been onging.
Lastly, their has always been a disconnect between those that use and those that make policy (that is not to say that stupidity and brilliance do not co exist on both sides.
At the turn of the century, the Chief of Ordnance was the autocratic BG Crozier, who was personally biased against Col Issac Lewis (inventor of the Lewis Gun) and John M. Browning. Crozier was known to have repeatedly said "The technician knows best what the combat troops require". When BG Crozier was finally declared incompetent and relieved of his command on December22, 1917, his successor, MG Clarence Williams took a much more enlightened view, saying simply "If the fighting men want elephants, we get them elephants".
(The Browning Machine Gun, Goldsmith- Collector Grade Publications)

The M14 has a role, albeit limited, in the fight. The Rock/SOPMOD stock puts the 14 in a new light, though the stupid safety is still in the same place. The Sage stock is being used in the EBR, and modified M14's are used as DMR's (and have been for a long time). The 14 is an accurate platform, though the higher degree of accuracy usually requires a much higher maintainence component.
I too don't think that the M4/ 5.56x45mm is perfect by any means, but is is waaay better then anything else fielded right now.

--------------------
S/F
Pat sends
Never Forget Those Who Died
Never Forget Those Who Killed Them

Edited by Pat_Rogers (12/01/05 06:29 AM)
__________________________________________________________________________________



I would agree with that 100%, for all the M4 can do....It's just too hard to replace it. The M14 will be phased out eventually by the SR25 for all of the above reasons and for all of the benifits of the .308 round. The M14 is still a great rifle in it's own right. I love my M1 garand, but there is only so much you can do with it. For me I want an M1A to put either an Aimpoint on or a medium range optic on it. You guys understand, just another gun to add to the collection.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 8:13:40 PM EDT
Let me preface this by saying I hate AR's...Even own a couple

I think that even a standard AR-10 would have more relevance to our soldiers than a M1A/M14 these days...
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 9:54:58 PM EDT
Yes, it is true they are pulling M14s out of the warehouses-It is because they finally realize they need a 7.62mm battle rifle for certain things and it is usually in the hands of the squad or platoon designated marksman and none else. They were issued because there was nothing else out there that was immediatly available for Afganistan-now it has gone mostly Army wide. Except for a division that is getting the M16 DMRs built (3rd ID comes to mind). Assault rifles are still the order of the day-not battle rifles. The M14 has its place in a limited role IMHO but not as a rifle for all to carry around-and that is where it is best. Good luck trying to find replacement parts for yours if it breaks downrange. It was a mediocre design in the 50s and still is one now. It made it's fame mostly after it's removal from service and on the match firing lines in a souped up match configuration not in combat (to which it no longer holds any records at Camp Perry because the M16 has outshot 30+ yrs of mediocrity in about 7). If it was really that great of a gun why did most of the free world opt for FALs? I'd rather carry a stock FAL any day of the week over a stock M14 and fire about 8 mags through each and you'll know what I am talking about.
As for civilian usage I guess it is ok, I have a friend who really likes his 18" barrel-he did not care for the 16" at all. I have 2 M1As built into match specs and I prefer to shot my M1 rifle because it is more comfortable to shoot IMHO.

But if you are happy that is all that matters in the end and if it works for you more power to you man.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 1:54:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KMFDM:
Yes, it is true they are pulling M14s out of the warehouses-It is because they finally realize they need a 7.62mm battle rifle for certain things and it is usually in the hands of the squad or platoon designated marksman and none else. They were issued because there was nothing else out there that was immediatly available for Afganistan-now it has gone mostly Army wide. Except for a division that is getting the M16 DMRs built (3rd ID comes to mind). Assault rifles are still the order of the day-not battle rifles. The M14 has its place in a limited role IMHO but not as a rifle for all to carry around-and that is where it is best. Good luck trying to find replacement parts for yours if it breaks downrange. It was a mediocre design in the 50s and still is one now. It made it's fame mostly after it's removal from service and on the match firing lines in a souped up match configuration not in combat (to which it no longer holds any records at Camp Perry because the M16 has outshot 30+ yrs of mediocrity in about 7). If it was really that great of a gun why did most of the free world opt for FALs? I'd rather carry a stock FAL any day of the week over a stock M14 and fire about 8 mags through each and you'll know what I am talking about.
As for civilian usage I guess it is ok, I have a friend who really likes his 18" barrel-he did not care for the 16" at all. I have 2 M1As built into match specs and I prefer to shot my M1 rifle because it is more comfortable to shoot IMHO.

But if you are happy that is all that matters in the end and if it works for you more power to you man.



I agree with alot of what you say but not in the tone you say it in. The Free world got FALs because the M14 was NEVER Marketed to the Free World. FN was a Business not a goverment Armory. They had good marketing. The FAL is a decent rifle. It has alot of flaws in it also. What you didn't say was the 7.62x51 round was aboslete when it was adopted as the standard round for the standard rifle. While the M14 isn't perfect ( no rifle is ) is certainly is as good if not better than a FAL. IMO 10 Mags through a M14 and 10 mags through a FAL and I'd take the M14.... Bottom line is the M14 is rugged rifle that can take dirt and still function and put accurate anough fire down range. It is serveing it's new role as a DMR and doing a good job at it. Like already said because we already have them .But also because they work .

If you have one with USGI parts and assyembled correctly ( In Spec ) it will pass many many many rounds till you will be worrying about replaceing a part. But even SA Inc Cast parts ( should give good life if made to spec.

It is old school .It isn't perfect. It is rugged, and a work horse. It's MOM ( minuet of Man ) accurate . From accounts I personally gathered from vets that had personally carried them into harms way, they served well and the only complaint I ever gotten was they was heavy. So was the M1 Garand, but it shore tore them Germans a new ass. , IMO WD
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 6:10:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eodinert:

Originally Posted By Mogwa:

Originally Posted By eodinert:

Originally Posted By Mogwa:
Why the military ever went away from this is beyond me.



Because it's completely and totally obsolete?




OH...So that is why the US Army is pulling them out of the warehouse to issue to our Joe's.



It's all they've got in a self loading .308 platform, and they don't have to buy them, that's why. It's still obsolete. Just like the AKs the haji's are shooting back with.



Reliability...accuracy....range......and stopping power never become obsolete.



But M14s did. Besides, accuracy is not issued along with the M14. You have to throw money at them to make them shoot well.



Accuracy is a fine quality of the out of box M1A....It will shoot the same as an AR and FAL out of the box and outperform the AR down range. I am not talking about shooting match rifles at Camp Perry. If I wanted to do that again, I would have got a match rifle. In my years of shooting competiton, I never seen M1A exploding and parts flying every where on the firing line. The only one I saw that didn't work was my Dad's ARMSCORP. That was a piece of crap.



Battle Rifle/Assualt Rifle.......I also thought the M1A/M-14 gave you the best of both worlds.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 6:39:47 AM EDT
I thought the Bush/Scout was an 18" barrel, and the SOCOM was the 16"? I've heard mixed reviews on the SOCOM, but everyone I've talked to that had one of the Scouts says it is the sweet
spot. Lighter and easier to manuever than the full size, takes aimpoints or eotechs on the forward mount, and accurate as hell.

I have one of the Chinese ones that has had some USGI parts put in it and I love it. It is reliable, accurate, and the Chinese mags that I got for about $12 apiece work flawlessly. They had a little light surface rust, but they cleaned up great.

I love all of my AK's, but the M1A has it's place too. MUCH more accurate than the AK, even my VEPR 308. The best line I've heard about it:

"The 308 turns concealment into cover."

I am searching for a good deal on a Scout model myself.

THe Ak and M1A are totally different. Apples and grapes. I love 'em both!

Link Posted: 1/23/2006 7:39:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dieter122:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
you'll be back after you have to chase your extractor down the firing line



haha o man..

M1s and AKs have different roles...each fill them very well. They are in totally different catagories



They both were designed to kill people ... Whats the diff. in the roles (catagories) ?
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:48:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By aaronrkelly:

Originally Posted By eodinert:

Originally Posted By Mogwa:
Why the military ever went away from this is beyond me.



Because it's completely and totally obsolete?



I always love these statements......they usually come from the AR crowd when Im talking about my AK though (most dont really know that the AR is about as old of a design as the AK).

Assuming you own an AK47 you are aware the design is of that rifle is 59 years old right.......

Also what really innovative "designs" have come about in guns in the last 50 years. We are still using box feed, automatic rifles rifles just like we were 80+ years ago.



By obsolete I think he means that most militaries arent using them en mass. therefore making parts not redily avialable. or very expensive. Not that the age of the gun.
Obsolete:1 a : no longer in use or no longer useful b : of a kind or style no longer current.

To me it just makes more snese to use a gun that parts are available at a reasonable cost. Unless it is a collector.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:23:16 AM EDT
The M1A is a fine rifle and I love mine. But I don't think you can replace the AK w/M1A and vice versa.

It is silly to think that one would fullfill the role of the other.

That's why I have both
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:06:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By anykey:

The best line I've heard about it:

"The 308 turns concealment into cover."




Isn't the line "The .308 turns cover into concealment" ?
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 11:11:49 PM EDT
Sorry if I came off a little gruff. I have been in this topic with the army since I first trained a few guys from the 82nd in proper usage and maintenance of the M14 rifle back in 02.

From the information I have garnered the M14 was a pretty poor design overall, John Garand warned of its poor gas system which I agree with. I have worked on quite a few and used to work with a few of the service rifle AMU gunsmiths who, most all of them despised the M14 because of constant maintenance issues with it, extractors flying off all the time was one of the main complaints plus other issues (most of them centered around the Match guns though). The gas system sucks IMHO. Concept of the battle rifle (M1 Garand included), was obsolete in 1943 with the advent of the Assault Rifle. The M14 was obosolete before it went past the T44 stage so was the 7.62mm cartridge as a general usage cartridge IMHO. For sniper/DMR and GPMG applications and limited usage it is fine (IMHO again). From what I can deduce we got the M14 because Springfield Armory did'nt want to make the FAL (T48)-I could be wrong though.

What really turned me off the M14 and onto the FAL: I was on a range at Ft. Bragg in early 2003 on a SPEND-EX. We brought 2 G-3s, 3 Belgian FALs and 2 M14s and about 2200 rounds. I was helping to train/familiarize a few troops from units going downrange in their usage (none had ever fired any of the above). We we all lined up and started shooting the G-3 first to which only one soldier out of about the 8-10 liked, most did not finish a magazine saying it was too punishing. Then came the M14s the guys liked it a quite bit more than the G-3, unfortunately one broke after about 100 rounds: Extractor flew off, spring guide rod bent and the sight became loose. Then came the FALs which everybody liked was just as accurate and after 1/2 hour nobody was shooting the M-14s very much or the G-3 at all, they were firing FALs as fast as they could load the magazines, Only problems that were encountered after about 400 rounds each, the FALs gas system started to bog down-easy fix though one more click and away you go. Try that with an M14: you'll need to wait till it cools remove the gas piston and you better have 2 drill bits handy of course which the Army never issued or had none the less. Not conducive to fighting the Russian horde from my point of view. When it came time to do a little Full Auto orientation, nobody wanted to fire the G-3 (myself included) the M14 was pretty darned useless to most (I do ok with it, I learned how to shoot full auto with an M14 years ago). Then the FAL was the easiest for all to control but definitely not recommended. Ranges were out to 300m. After all was said and done during the informal AAR we asked the soldiers which they preferred and most if not all said the FAL. That helped to change my mind a little plus what I had seen in the past.

Yes it is doing the job down range no doubt there and until the new SASS system gets approved it will continue to do so. But it is still a mediocre design, not a good one from my point of view.

And like I said, If it makes your boat float then by all means sail on Captain!
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 2:03:44 AM EDT
I never handeled the military M14's. Only in my dreams. But I have built two M14's /M1A one G3 and two FAL,s . All Brand new parts kits.No wore out junk. I have shot many rounds through all these rifles. In a clean invirment I must admitt. The G3 is the most reliable in the long run . The M14 next, and then the FAL.
The M14 's gas system should go well over the 1000-1500 round count with out being touched. It doesn't need an adjustable gas sytem. While although a different set up from a Garand it didn't need an adjustable one either. Niether of the 3 are very good in auto. most of our's ( USA ) had the auto lock installed and kept the rifle in semi only unless it was the squad automatic rifle role. And then had a E2 stock on it. Normally,not always.The G3 is what it is, a Beast. But I still like them. RUGGED...................alot of countrys had FAL's in semi only also.

I have NEVER seen an M14 pop an USGI set up extractor. But Im sure it can happen. 99.9% popped extractors on the internet are from SA Inc reproduction parts. They pop because the dimple hole is too shallow and the spring and plunger ISN"T made to correct lenght. I studied this problem and sampled this myself. I would think that the extractor popping out that you saw was due to the spring being 45 years old compressed,or the dimple being worn from many ,many many rounds gone through her.
If the spring guide rod was bent , it had to be bent when it was installed. I have seen some that wasn't perfectly straight ( USGI ) but functioned just fine. From how it is captured and functions I can't see noway for it to happen from a rifle discharging point. IMO

Same can be said about the loose front site. If tight when you started shooting it would have been tight when you finnished. Hey it's happened to us all on something or another.

Now the FAL which is a very good rifle , has its flaws also. The rear sight mount on the lower and the barrel on the upper. With time a GI will have them two havles loosened up from dropping the rifle and such.You know what us GI's do .... It happens. I see no need for an adjustable gas system. Why ??? Enginneer the rifle to shoot NATO ammo and a gas system to take it. I two have put X amount of rounds down range to have it short stroke and have to give it one or two more clicks. Now I know some would say so what give it two more turns and bee done with it. Personal experiance . I was in a Fun Match FAL ONLY. I had already shot several different stations and moved to the run and shoot stage. Well the Trusty FAL that has been flawless up to this point got short stroking. In a timed event. I thoguht first stoppages was a fluke. clear jam and fired off a couple more and jam again. Two turns on the gas knob and I was back in action. I was down 30 seconds or so. It knocked me right out of haveing a decent run. Shooting NATO Port . Thats what I don't like about them.From talking to vets that have carried the FAL into harms way they also said they just turn the gas wide open due to this happening at the wrong time.

With the russians haveing came out with the AK in 1949 or so I agree the MBR was going to be short lived. Thats what happen kinda with the M14 and M16 deal. M14 a great rifle and served us well. It would have been nice if they could have put it in the DMR role long ago with our standard Infatry before the action in the sand box. IMO

For AK news I just got my Rommie Side folder back from InRange and can't wait to go shoot it. WarDawg

Link Posted: 1/24/2006 4:10:51 AM EDT
Different jobs require different tools, IMHO. If there was one perfect caliber/platform we'd all be using it and arguing about such pertinent points as the best stock color. With that being said I used the M-14 in the 70's and liked it but I currently have no use for it. My 5.45 AK suits my needs out to 300m (lighter weight, more ammo, less recoil) and my .308 NDM-86 Dragunov is good out to 900m (more accurate and still 100% reliable).
Tomac
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 10:15:50 PM EDT
I used to believe the M14 was the end all be all. I never considered another 7.62mm Rifle because it was the best, but after years of working around them I do not believe so anymore.

With the M14 goofy stuff happens.... It wasn't the front sight that became loose it was the rear sight-it happens from time to time. Also the spring guide got bent because the recoil spring broke somewhere in there and collapsed bending the spring guide and impairing function more so. In Afganistan the old wood stocks cracked on quite a few and had to be replaced with the fibreglass jobbers-It happpens with older guns. When I went to a weapon repair shop in Iraq to scrounge up some M14 extractors. They had about 30 on the rack that could not be made mission capable due to lack of parts, old design unfortunatly, not many parts left in the system. When I asked one of the techs there about maintenance observations/trends for the M14 he said I was not the first to ask for extractors and other issues. He told me the ones they had were just being cannibalized to keep ones in the field operational because of lack of parts.

I was talking to a former gunsmith instructor of mine when I got back from Afganistan and before I went to Iraq about the M14. He was an armorer in the late 50s and early 60s he told me that it was a full time job keeping his companies M14s serviceable. He had problems with wandering zero fouled gas pistons, broken tails on the firing pins and few other things. GI extractors do break or fly off and sometimes it fills up with carbon and sand (to include the retaining spring hole) which binds the spring and then voila! no more extractor. One of my main points about the gas system is special tools are needed but not provided or ever were-whereas on the FAL any chimp can fix it and get it going again. I know guns do break and stop working-it is a machine. But on the FAL it seems easier to keep on running. You mention a match where you lost points due to a fouled gas system on a FAL. If your M14s gas system fouled would you be able to continue the match-Or worse what if it fouled in combat? would you still be able to fix it and complete your mission? Or would you be stuck with a staight put rifle?

My father who was also an Small Arms repairman who worked on Garands and M14s didn't have much good to say about the M14 either from a Direct support maintenance stand point. He also said M1s had similar problems with their extractors from time to time.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 2:11:57 AM EDT
I can understand you point. The system is no longer able to support the rifle due to parts and knowledge of and about the rifle ingeneral. I have to say thats the first time ever I heard of a return spring breaking. There's a first for everything. The situation with me on a range match would have been a M14 would go longer with out needing to be messed with vs a FAL or atleast My FAL. . The M14 came with it's universal tool for doing certain task such as unscrewing the gas plug.It is kepted in the butt stock with it's cleaning kit. I do understand your end of it all, being the parts shortages and worn parts in a 45 year old rifle, that many don't know how to work and less know how to shoot it. It is a good rifle , and from the experiance of my father inlaw's who range time with the M14 while in the U.S. Marine's was a tour in Vietnam 1964-1965 he loved it and no problems to speak of. But I realise these was Brand New rifles back then...Age and time can take it's toll on us all.

General tire did make Fiberglass stocks for them in the mid sixties to replace the wood stocks. I surprised you still have the wood stocks on them. I guess Uncle SAM got rid of them also. They are very rugged and hold the action like no wood ever could. WD.

Link Posted: 1/25/2006 2:12:25 AM EDT
I like both. I have both. I am happy. I need more AKs.

Max
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 2:18:19 AM EDT
Good Choice
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 5:57:41 AM EDT
It seems historic that all US Military Firearms have/had problems with extractors. Look at the M-16. My COLT Armorer Instructor stated, "98% of all M-16 stopages are extractor related."

A friend of my dad's fought in WWII. He loved his 19O3A3 for killing Japs better than a garand. He said that when someone would accidentally kick sand onto your Garand, you were screwed when the 03A3 would still work. I don't know of any automatic (AK included) that will function after having sand thrown in the action.

I know the M1A is more complex than the AK and does require more maintance than the AK. (don't know anything about FAL's) Regardless, it functions great and will provide me with years of fun and protection because I know how to read a -10 manual and clean the thing. The 308 speaks for itself and there is no argument about that. I am not in to this SHTF stuff. I don't care that I can't carry as much ammo as the next guy or that it is too heavy. I was a SAW gunner when I deployed to Haiti in 94. Carried 1000rds (4drums+the one on the saw), I am not a puss.... If something bad does happen, I will be defending my home and family, not conducting LRS ops. As far as parts.....every FUN show I go to have a least two tables of spare military parts for them. I'll pick up what I need.

I did check out DSA's website......HMMMM......Very interesting.....
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:28:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mogwa:
I don't know of any automatic (AK included) that will function after having sand thrown in the action.




I thought this has been demonstrated many times...
Top Top