I earned my Distinguished Rifleman's badge and a Regional Gold with an M1a, and I have many fond memories of the rifle.
While I agree that anything a commercial publication does is for the advertisers, because that is their business model. Since the 1880's starting with the Ladies Home Journal, the subscription price is only "earnest" money demanded from the subscriber. It probably does not cover the full cost of publication. In print publications make their profits, and they only exist for profits, from advertising. The fact of the matter is, the articles are there so you will look at the ads, and in many cases, the articles are ads, or "
infomercials". Very few actually know this.
However, I still think the M14/M1a action a better rifle than the AR15. I prefer the cartridge. It was a well developed and professionally developed round. I went through three barrels on the pictured rifle, I had only one malfunction and it was due to my ammunition. You don't need to, and you should not, push pressures in this cartridge for either accuracy or range. However the AR15 is loaded, typically, a half grain down from blowing primers. It is always on the edge and therefore, you go over the edge a lot. The Army Ordnance Bureau has gone dark on their specs, but based on the smattering of reports, they are now loading their ammunition almost to the old proof pressures of the old 5.56 mm. A 7.62 round is very lethal, and has a great range, running at 45,000 psia in a M1a. Which is probably the pressure range of most of my rounds. And, you don't rip rims, or have stove pipes ejection problems. That enclosed loading part in the AR15 causes lots of problems. Rounds get jammed in there and you have to carry a Leatherman type tool to reach in the port to remove the stupid jammed cartridge. The M14 had reliable magazines, the greatest source of weakness for the AR15 has been magazines. In large part this is due to how straight the 5.56 cartridge was. Take a look at the taper of short rounds, and for short rounds, the 5.56 is very straight. That ought to tell you something. When the most sophisticated armament engineers in the world (PRC Ordnance Bureau) created their intermediate round, their round has more taper than the US 5.56. It also has a nice thick rim and their rifles use steel cases without function problems.
The American 5.56 mm round was a wild cat created by Bob Hutton at his ranch. Bob Hutton was a wealthy publisher and gun enthusiast. He used no analytical tools to examine feed, extraction, expansion or contraction. He did not even have pressure gauges, he estimated pressures with a paper slide rule called the Powell Computer. He had no idea of port pressures. He had a chronograph which was unusual in the day, pushed a 55 grain bullet 3300 fps, and his round would penetrate a steel pot WW2 helmet at 500 yards. For Bob, those criteria were the Gold Standard of excellence for a military round. I used to be mad at him, but, even if this was only a vanity project, he was about the only American working on an intermediate round. The unfortunate thing was it became the service round for the US Armies and the immaturity of the M16 and the 5.56 killed a lot of good American boys. It did make a lot of profits for the Industrial sector, and that is all that counts.
Stoner's magazines were initially designed to be lightweight, cheap, and throwaway, and it has only until polymer material technology advanced enough, which was around 2000, that there are some durable and reliable M16 magazines. M14 magazines have all been reliable if they are mil spec.
I like the open top design of the M14, rounds eject and don't bounce around. If there is a jam, you can get your hands in there and clear the problem without having to carry a pair of needle nosed pliers.
If a primer blows, or crud gets in the trigger mechanism, you can pull it out and clean it very quickly. This is a Garand trigger group, the M14 was a product improved version, the basics are there .
this is very easy to remove from the rifle and the open architecture allows easy cleaning. Shoot enough NRA Across the course matches and you will have, and see, individuals whose AR15's went down because the primer blew out and fell into the lower. I had to leave a match, go to the pavilion, where I took brass hammers, brass punches and needle nosed pliers, to remove the trigger springs and pins to fish out a primer that was jamming my trigger mechanism. It would not shake out. Most shooters would have to go looking for an Armorer in that situation, and I am unaware of an Armorer being assigned to every combat patrol.
I talked to lots of Vietnam veterans and the M14's were dirt tolerant and extremely reliable. The early M16's were jam a matics that killed a lot of GI's, and even as they were product improved, they still require much more attention and maintenance. Foreign countries only use the things if they are given to them as foreign aid. Free is hard to beat. The elites don't care if they loose a couple of enlisted men once and while because the weapon is not that reliable and takes a high degree of maintenance, all that matters is that the weapon was free.
The AR10 is a big rifle, you can put a folding stock on a M1a and have a very compact 308.
As long as you full length resize, size your ammunition with a small base die, use the least sensitive primer you can find (CCI #34's) and use loads appropriate for the gas system,the M1a type rifle is very reliable with reloads.
Also, always feed from the magazine. Press single rounds into the magazine. The drag helps slow the forward bolt velocity and reduces the chance of an in battery, or out of battery, slamfire.
With one of those I am sure that I would've done better on this drill than I did with the Mini-14. 
![IMG_6121[1].JPG](/data/attachments/835/835731-a805ebf4cc88cb570c7b9f3531d96cc8.jpg)
![IMG_6122[1].JPG](/data/attachments/835/835732-a8f12736d9a47d8c344da3863d4fa5b8.jpg)
![IMG_6123[1].JPG](/data/attachments/835/835733-f70df9120c7a22552e9b89cbc659d304.jpg)
