rockstar.esq
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,475
So I've just read Scott A. Duff's book on the M1A. There are a few things I've learned about them that lead me to be very dissapointed with it as a whole. Please note that I am drawing the following from that singular reference.
1) The gun wasn't designed to prevent slamfires. (The SKS has similar problems but it's a MUCH older design, the US military knew about the problem and didn't try to fix it)
2) The gun wasn't designed to contain slamfires to a closed bolt position. (Potentially fatal to shooter)
3) The gas system is not adjustable to accomodate different powder charges and bullet weights. (batters the gun to death with commercial ammo)
4) The bedding material is only rated to last for 1000 rounds maximum. (1 year for average match shooter)
5) The barrel must be cleaned from the muzzle. (Much harder than it needs to be)
6) Bore solvents supposedly deteriorate the bedding. (Seriously stupid)
7) The ejection system batters brass so hard that reloads aren't realistic. (Annoying but common enough among all military semiauto rifles)
8) One MOA is considered the pinnacle of accuracy from this platform. (Depressing considering the folklore about how amazing it is)
9) Well bedded rifles require a hammer and a brass drift punch to field strip. (Again, annoying but "match" stuff is generally a PITA to disassemble)
10) 211+ quality assurance testing fixtures, 400+ manufacturing steps, all based on M1 fixtures and jigs, to produce a rifle design that was/is flawed from the beginning.
After my reading I've come to identify the two main reasons for the record of accuracy associated with the M1A. The first is the sights. Without a doubt the iron sights on the M1A are superb. The second is the ammunition. The 7.62x51 was/is loaded to a much higher level of quality and consistency than the 30-06 was for non match ammo. The powder advances no doubt play a huge role here. If I'm wrong about my conclusions I'd love to hear arguements against them. I'd really like to believe that the M1A was/is the finest rifle the US military has ever fielded but I need to see some evidence to disprove my earlier contentions.
1) The gun wasn't designed to prevent slamfires. (The SKS has similar problems but it's a MUCH older design, the US military knew about the problem and didn't try to fix it)
2) The gun wasn't designed to contain slamfires to a closed bolt position. (Potentially fatal to shooter)
3) The gas system is not adjustable to accomodate different powder charges and bullet weights. (batters the gun to death with commercial ammo)
4) The bedding material is only rated to last for 1000 rounds maximum. (1 year for average match shooter)
5) The barrel must be cleaned from the muzzle. (Much harder than it needs to be)
6) Bore solvents supposedly deteriorate the bedding. (Seriously stupid)
7) The ejection system batters brass so hard that reloads aren't realistic. (Annoying but common enough among all military semiauto rifles)
8) One MOA is considered the pinnacle of accuracy from this platform. (Depressing considering the folklore about how amazing it is)
9) Well bedded rifles require a hammer and a brass drift punch to field strip. (Again, annoying but "match" stuff is generally a PITA to disassemble)
10) 211+ quality assurance testing fixtures, 400+ manufacturing steps, all based on M1 fixtures and jigs, to produce a rifle design that was/is flawed from the beginning.
After my reading I've come to identify the two main reasons for the record of accuracy associated with the M1A. The first is the sights. Without a doubt the iron sights on the M1A are superb. The second is the ammunition. The 7.62x51 was/is loaded to a much higher level of quality and consistency than the 30-06 was for non match ammo. The powder advances no doubt play a huge role here. If I'm wrong about my conclusions I'd love to hear arguements against them. I'd really like to believe that the M1A was/is the finest rifle the US military has ever fielded but I need to see some evidence to disprove my earlier contentions.