M1A Purchase?

[Coal Dragger]

Now you have gone and hurt my feelings.
I was a Anti Armor Section Leader in the Sandbox. I took out a BMP at 800 meters with a Dragon, in combat. The crew of that BMP had no complaints about the effectiveness of the Dragon.

Lets remember that the environment is different in most wars. Vietnam didn't have brick and mud wall huts. Most of the fighting was not done in the city's, and the 7.62x51 did a much better job of going through things.
The sandbox was different. Armored vehicles, brick walls and mud walls, thank God for rockets and missiles.
Each weapon has had it's moment it time where it was the best, or ran with the big dogs, Well, there were a few that did suck in their time, but no one really talks about them.
But lets get real. We're not talking about what gun, or caliber is better for combat. We're talking about a rifle that will most likely see a lot of range time and some hunting.
Hell, If I only bought guns for combat, I wouldn't have so many.

The Dragon missile was horribly unreliable by the time I was in. We shot up almost all of them as 0351’s in the early 2000’s as the Javelin was coming online. I’d say we experienced close to a 40% failure rate on the missile, mainly having to do with the little solid fuel rocket charges on the sides of the round that kept it bounding down range. Most commonly they never fired off, so you got initial launch and then a Dragon round plopped in the dirt 75-100 yards away. Then EOD got to deal with it and your range was shut down until then.

Not a confidence inspiring weapon at all. I’m not sure what kind of maintenance needed to be performed on those missiles to make them work, but it clearly wasn’t being done. Probably a result of the Clinton era .mil budget being what it was.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

So is an M2 .50cal... but sometimes it's what you need. Part of the problem is using the wrong tool for the job at hand... the M14, even something like a Socom16, is not really a doorkicker's dream weapon. Further, with all the junk everyone seems to want to put on them, including the EBR versions, makes them even heavier.

I was issued and carried the M16A1 when I was in. After I got out, I bought a Colt H-Bar -A1... very similar to what I had in the service. It felt right, it shot well, and occasionally it would bring a nostalgic tear to my eye. I built my first AR carbine some years ago... lighter, handier, and killing off all those paper targets and clay pigeons... just as effective as my old -A1, for sure. Now I pick up my old H-Bar... and think... It’s too heavy. It’s too cumbersome. Everything is relative. Carrying an M14 on patrol... it probably seems pretty heavy after a while, but given the right circumstance (engaging targets at rifle ranges) it ain't heavy, he's my brother.

Well that "junk" is just a fact of life for the modern infantryman and has to be considered when we are discussing infantry weapons.

Optics like the Trijicon RCO and the Aimpoint Comp have revolutionized combat, infrared lasers, night vision optics, rifle mounted grenade launchers--these are force multipliers that are going to be included on any system you issue because they make the individual infantryman more effective. Any supposed range or power advantage your battle rifle has needs to be realistically evaluated next to a 40mm HEDP and the ability to see in the dark. When you are realistic about such things, the battle rifle offers minimal advantage in most situations.

Most infantrymen would rather have a 7 pound assault rifle with an Aimpoint, PVS-14, DBAL, and M203 than a basic M14 at the same weight, because the "junk" on the assault rifle provides real advantages in threat identification and engagement, unit cohesion and situational awareness, and firepower than the largely theoretical and highly situation dependent advantages of a battle rifle. And adding these items to an M14 with an unloaded base weight of 10 pounds quickly ends up being too heavy to be practical in many situations.

 

[ilbob]

I have been considering the possibility that it is time to get rid of some of my safe queens.

Maybe I will find someone who really wants an M1A that will give it a good home and take it out to the range now and then.

 

[ilbob]

The Dragon missile was horribly unreliable by the time I was in. We shot up almost all of them as 0351’s in the early 2000’s as the Javelin was coming online. I’d say we experienced close to a 40% failure rate on the missile, mainly having to do with the little solid fuel rocket charges on the sides of the round that kept it bounding down range. Most commonly they never fired off, so you got initial launch and then a Dragon round plopped in the dirt 75-100 yards away. Then EOD got to deal with it and your range was shut down until then.

Not a confidence inspiring weapon at all. I’m not sure what kind of maintenance needed to be performed on those missiles to make them work, but it clearly wasn’t being done. Probably a result of the Clinton era .mil budget being what it was.

That is interesting. I had heard they had a bad track record. No personal experience with them, being as I was never in the military.

One thing I had heard was the problems were related to some kind of "bad seal". I took it to mean water was able to get into some critical component that caused it to fail. But that was just from one guy. He also told me how he let one go one time and it exploded mid-flight. He said when he reported the malfunction, he was told that he was mistaken because that couldn't happen.

 

[Speedo66]

The consensus is that the M14 is garbage. It’s too heavy. It’s too cumbersome. It’s not durable in the maintaining accuracy department, and it does poorly in sandy/dusty environments.

The consensus when I was in, starting in 1967, was that the M-16 was junk. Too many gummed up actions from poor ammo. M-14's were considered heavy, but they worked.

The M-14 does poorly in a sandy environment? I saw many, many M-14's dropped in the sand in basic on the Ft. Ord range, which were the beaches on the Monterey CA coast. They were hurriedly picked up before the Sgt. saw it had been dropped, no time for cleaning or clearing, and guess what, they all worked and continued to work without a cleaning. So I would have to respectfully disagree with that statement.

 

[lionking]

so, a nice M1A with 500 rounds is for sale at my LGS for about $500 more than I expect to get for the gun I’m selling. That’s a step for me at this moment...But I’ve always kinda wanted one. A buddy has one so part of me is like, I can live for a while on his joy...I own a Ruger GSS in .308 Win as my ‘woods gun’ along with my 45-70...

Talk me out of this, please...

Greg

oh lordy getting back to the topic at hand your post says it all you want one so get one they are fun and iconic to shoot and accurate all things said look at the target a member posted in this thread
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/january-february-postal-match.845857/

I get typically with run of the mill ammo 3 to 4+ inch groups at 100 yds standard sights, I have also a FAL and h&K 91 and get similar results. As far as battle worthiness if America ever went that bad chances are you wouldn't last long enough to see it fail anyway and the next guy who picked it up can see if it still runs after being dropped in sand or mud.

Plenty of vets loved it, plenty now still like to shoot it, plenty now prefer a AR, leave it at that.

I have lugged a M1 and M1A in heavy brush on excursions into the wild before (not in military or combat) and the weight never bothered me (when I was younger)

 

[tark]

Not really much reason to go on discussing the relative merits and faults of either weapon. Looks like the subject has been pretty well covered. Each has its strong points and its weak points. Everybody has their favorite and I doubt any minds will be changed.

Coal Dragger has mentioned that he has had problems with two Springfield ( Geneseo ) Armory M-1As he used to have. Join the club, a LOT of people have. Quality control through the years was a struggle as they were running out of mil-surp parts . I had the opposite experience. In 89 I bought a standard M-1A from them, and what I got was a gun full of TRW parts, to include the barrel, entire trigger group, op-rod and bolt assembly.

Now, anyone who knows anything about M-14s knows that Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge built the best M-14s by far. Their normal job was building exotic, highly specialized parts for jet engines. Building an M-14 was child's play. I have since sold the thing and I've been kicking myself ever since. When the Army needed some National Match rifles, instead of having the AMU select and build from the existing supply....they had TRW build them from scratch.

The M-14 had a lot of problems and a troubled history in the early years Some of this was mechanical and some political. A lot of people said we should have adopted the T-48 ( FAL.) and maybe we should have, but that rifle shared a lot of the M-14s faults. It was heavy and fired too fast on full-auto, to name two. It also had a rear sight hanging out in the breeze with nothing to protect it against being dropped on a hard surface. We have a T-48 at the museum that was actually IN the trials, along with several rifles in the T-44 series, which became the M-14. We even have a T-44E6, the proposed M-14 carbine. Weighs 7 1/2 pounds. Has a 20" barrel and an aluminum butt plate. Failed in the trials.

If anyone wishes to see what the AR platform looked like in it's diapers, we have several ARs dating back to 1960, with the pukey green plastic, the duck billed flash suppressor, no forward assist, no speed bump for the lefties and no fences around the mag release. These rifles have the 1-14" twist.

Before anyone asks, yes, I am plugging the RIA museum and yes, I do volunteer work there. Come see us if you're in the area. Inventory is in early march, I'll post some more pics.

 

[Coal Dragger]

That is interesting. I had heard they had a bad track record. No personal experience with them, being as I was never in the military.

One thing I had heard was the problems were related to some kind of "bad seal". I took it to mean water was able to get into some critical component that caused it to fail. But that was just from one guy. He also told me how he let one go one time and it exploded mid-flight. He said when he reported the malfunction, he was told that he was mistaken because that couldn't happen.

A bad seal allowing condensation from humid air or salt air entry could be a reason for poor reliability. All the little auxiliary rockets, the guidance portion that follows the laser, pretty much everything in the round relied on electrical connections. If those were badly corroded you probably stood a high probability of a dud round.

 

[GBExpat]

It was gone when I got there today.

 

[SharpDog]

OK, let me talk you out of this.

You don't want to get the M1A,

First of all, it's too accurate so you'll always be hitting game and then you gotta butcher it and haul out all the meat. In addition, you have to deal with that big rack of horns. Soon you will run out of wall space.

Secondly, it's too reliable. If you use it your malfunction clearing skills will erode and you'll miss that flinch that can develop with a less reliable rifle.

Next, it's got too much history to it. Whenever you look at it you'll be reminded of the millions of brave soldiers that carried in in defense of our nation. This could distract you from planning your hunts.

Also, It will likely hold its value pretty well so you'll be tempted to sell it. Better to get that cheap Remington bolt action that no one wants to buy from you.

Lastly, It's too powerful. Why get the M1A when you could get several rifles like a .243 for deer and a .300 Win Mag for Elk.

 

[tark]

Post deleted

 

[SharpDog]

Post deleted

Well, it's a good thing I talked him out of it then !

M1A National Match (101st Airborne #58 of 101):
Springfield Armory Limited Edition M1A (.308 Win)
Factory NewCondition
Starting Bid
$1,450.00




https://www.gunbroker.com/item/798991298

 

[Coal Dragger]

Not really much reason to go on discussing the relative merits and faults of either weapon. Looks like the subject has been pretty well covered. Each has its strong points and its weak points. Everybody has their favorite and I doubt any minds will be changed.

Coal Dragger has mentioned that he has had problems with two Springfield ( Geneseo ) Armory M-1As he used to have. Join the club, a LOT of people have. Quality control through the years was a struggle as they were running out of mil-surp parts . I had the opposite experience. In 89 I bought a standard M-1A from them, and what I got was a gun full of TRW parts, to include the barrel, entire trigger group, op-rod and bolt assembly.

Now, anyone who knows anything about M-14s knows that Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge built the best M-14s by far. Their normal job was building exotic, highly specialized parts for jet engines. Building an M-14 was child's play. I have since sold the thing and I've been kicking myself ever since. When the Army needed some National Match rifles, instead of having the AMU select and build from the existing supply....they had TRW build them from scratch.

The M-14 had a lot of problems and a troubled history in the early years Some of this was mechanical and some political. A lot of people said we should have adopted the T-48 ( FAL.) and maybe we should have, but that rifle shared a lot of the M-14s faults. It was heavy and fired too fast on full-auto, to name two. It also had a rear sight hanging out in the breeze with nothing to protect it against being dropped on a hard surface. We have a T-48 at the museum that was actually IN the trials, along with several rifles in the T-44 series, which became the M-14. We even have a T-44E6, the proposed M-14 carbine. Weighs 7 1/2 pounds. Has a 20" barrel and an aluminum butt plate. Failed in the trials.

If anyone wishes to see what the AR platform looked like in it's diapers, we have several ARs dating back to 1960, with the pukey green plastic, the duck billed flash suppressor, no forward assist, no speed bump for the lefties and no fences around the mag release. These rifles have the 1-14" twist.

Before anyone asks, yes, I am plugging the RIA museum and yes, I do volunteer work there. Come see us if you're in the area. Inventory is in early march, I'll post some more pics.

Ultimately Uncle Sugar dorked up the FAL, and all the other NATO rifles of the era with the idiotic insistence on the 7.62mm NATO. It’s a decent general purpose machinegun round, but there are bette solutions for individual carbines, precision rifles, and fire team level automatic weapons.

 

[SharpDog]

Greg

Now you have me looking at Gunbroker, If I get one I'm gonna come and find you and make you hunt with it



https://www.gunbroker.com/item/799575022

 

[SharpDog]

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/797601982

 

[ExAgoradzo]

That first one is more my style.
Having said that, I’d like to have a creedmore!

Love to go find some hogs with you!

Greg

 

[IndianaBoy]

so, a nice M1A with 500 rounds is for sale at my LGS for about $500 more than I expect to get for the gun I’m selling. That’s a step for me at this moment...But I’ve always kinda wanted one. A buddy has one so part of me is like, I can live for a while on his joy...I own a Ruger GSS in .308 Win as my ‘woods gun’ along with my 45-70...

Talk me out of this, please...

Greg

I can help!

The M14 was an evolutionary dead end. It won't do anything more than a quality AR-10 and in most circumstances it will probably be heavier, less accurate, and much much more difficult to scope properly. Even if you do manage to shoehorn an optic onto the thing, you will then need an enormous cheek riser to get your eye behind it.

 

[Nature Boy]

The M14 was an evolutionary dead end. It won't do anything more than a quality AR-10 and in most circumstances it will probably be heavier, less accurate, and much much more difficult to scope properly. Even if you do manage to shoehorn an optic onto the thing, you will then need an enormous cheek riser to get your eye behind it.

You could make the same practical argument about an M1 Carbine and an AR in 300 blk. So if a guy has always wanted the former would he really be happy with the latter?

 

[IndianaBoy]

But I have yet to run into a vet with a bad memory about his M-14.

My buddy who used one in the DMR role in Iraq didn't like his. I can't use the name he used for it on this forum.


I'm not disputing your account, but the AR platform has evolved significantly since then.

 

[IndianaBoy]

You could make the same practical argument about an M1 Carbine and an AR in 300 blk. So if a guy has always wanted the former would he really be happy with the latter?

He asked people to talk him out of it.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with an M14 if that is what someone wants.

It is nice to have a such a wide assortment of options. I do think the M1 and M14 are iconic rifles of their time.

I personally don't want one. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting one.

 

[Charlie98]

I can help!

The M14 was an evolutionary dead end. It won't do anything more than a quality AR-10 and in most circumstances it will probably be heavier, less accurate, and much much more difficult to scope properly. Even if you do manage to shoehorn an optic onto the thing, you will then need an enormous cheek riser to get your eye behind it.

Not so much. The M14 continued to evolve even after it was pulled from service... hence, the EBR, and other chassis versions, including a bullpup design. Further, there have been improvements to adding optics... front rail on the Socom versions, and things like the Ultimak rail. In 1965, the AR-10 did not exist in it's current form today, so you could say they both have evolved.

 

[IndianaBoy]

Not so much. The M14 continued to evolve even after it was pulled from service... hence, the EBR, and other chassis versions, including a bullpup design.

A 5.5 pound, $800 attempt to turn an M14 into something that it isn't..... I will pass.

In 1965, the AR-10 did not exist in it's current form today, so you could say they both have evolved.

That is true with respect to mounting optics. The AR-10 had the rear sight (carry handle, but not really) that was designed to surround the original position of the charging handle. But you could take an AR-10 from the 1950s, take it apart and swap in a new production Armalite pattern flat top upper and slap a modern scope on it.



A buddy of mine has an M1A that was built by an AMU armorer. It is a sweet rifle, and I enjoy shooting it. But it is heavy, and mounting optics is convoluted. Were I buying or building a large frame semi-auto it would be an AR-10. I don't say that to demean the M14.

I own an old Colt export 603 that came back from somewhere in SE Asia as a demilled kit. I don't consider it very practical but I own it because I like it. If you like your M14, you don't need to justify it to me. Free country, we can all shoot what we like and argue about the guns online on a rainy day.

 

[Nature Boy]

The M1A isn’t very practical or versatile.

I mean, You can’t hunt wirh it, right?



Not accurate enough for small varmints like Pdogs



A 2MOA rifle at best.....


Bottom line: they're just no fun

 

[IndianaBoy]

The M1A isn’t very practical or versatile.

I mean, You can’t hunt wirh it, right?

View attachment 826059

Not accurate enough for small varmints like Pdogs

View attachment 826060

A 2MOA rifle at best.....View attachment 826061


Bottom line: they're just no fun

You seem to have taken a personal affront to my commentary.

Shoot what you like. I will do the same.

 

[Reloadron]

I can help!

The M14 was an evolutionary dead end. It won't do anything more than a quality AR-10 and in most circumstances it will probably be heavier, less accurate, and much much more difficult to scope properly. Even if you do manage to shoehorn an optic onto the thing, you will then need an enormous cheek riser to get your eye behind it.

I don't know. The M14 came along in the M 21 and M 25 sniper versions and when scoped required a riser but the same is true of the AR 10 Rifle.



When I add a scope to the above pictured AR 10 I need a cheek riser much the same as when I scope the M1A. Either rifle needs a riser.



The fact that the M14 enjoyed a short service life as to a basic issue rifle really means nothing. We are not suggesting the original poster is buying a rifle for a combat role but a rifle for punching paper on the range. As to killing things there is no shortage of wealthy West Virginians hunting deer with a M1A while the less fortunate use an SKS. The M16 was just another GI rifle in the evolution of things. It's lighter than the rifles which came before it and uses lighter ammunition. Anyway, when scoping either rifle a cheek rest is pretty necessary.

Ron