what's the difference between a M1A or M14
- Thread starter dlcrouch
- Start date
- Status
RNB65
Member
One's a select fire military weapon (M14). The other is a semi-automatic civilian weapon (M1A).
ocabj
Member
The M14 is the military designation for the United States Rifle, Caliber 7.62 mm. It is a select fire rifle.
The M1A is Springfield Armory Inc.'s clone of the M14, but in a semi-auto only configuration. While many people call any civilian M14 clone an M1A, only clones made by Springfield Armory Inc. are true M1A by name (since M1A is a trademarked name owned by Springfield Armory Inc).
Fulton Armory, LRB Arms, and Polytech are other manufacturers that have produced M14 clones. The current Fulton Armory clones should be stamped M14 on the heel. LRB Arms receivers are stamped M14SA. I couldn't tell you what a Polytech is stamped with.
The M1A is Springfield Armory Inc.'s clone of the M14, but in a semi-auto only configuration. While many people call any civilian M14 clone an M1A, only clones made by Springfield Armory Inc. are true M1A by name (since M1A is a trademarked name owned by Springfield Armory Inc).
Fulton Armory, LRB Arms, and Polytech are other manufacturers that have produced M14 clones. The current Fulton Armory clones should be stamped M14 on the heel. LRB Arms receivers are stamped M14SA. I couldn't tell you what a Polytech is stamped with.
M1A utilizes an investment cast receiver and may contain a mixture of genuine USGI Mil-Spec parts along with investment cast replica parts, or all USGI parts or mostly investment cast parts along with Mil-Spec smaller parts.
Barrels can be any of a number of different makes and qualities including again, many genuine Mil-Spec Mil-Surplus barrels.
There are examples of full automatic M1A rifles but they are rare.
As stated above, a genuine M14 rifle utilizes only Mil-Spec forged steel receiver and is capable of selective full automatic fire.
The Parts are almost always Mil-Spec and the barrels are generally Mil-Spec though there are numbers of genuine M14 rifles that use outsource manufactured barrels.
There are commercial versions of the M14, notably early Smith Enterprise production and LRB, that also utilize forged steel receivers and are only capable of semi-automatic fire.
The biggest difference between an M1A and an M14 besides the selective fire capability is the sound the action makes when cycled.
A forged receiver rifle will ring like a bell while the investment cast receiver will make a clunking sound.
Strength wise the receivers are about the same. HTH
Barrels can be any of a number of different makes and qualities including again, many genuine Mil-Spec Mil-Surplus barrels.
There are examples of full automatic M1A rifles but they are rare.
As stated above, a genuine M14 rifle utilizes only Mil-Spec forged steel receiver and is capable of selective full automatic fire.
The Parts are almost always Mil-Spec and the barrels are generally Mil-Spec though there are numbers of genuine M14 rifles that use outsource manufactured barrels.
There are commercial versions of the M14, notably early Smith Enterprise production and LRB, that also utilize forged steel receivers and are only capable of semi-automatic fire.
The biggest difference between an M1A and an M14 besides the selective fire capability is the sound the action makes when cycled.
A forged receiver rifle will ring like a bell while the investment cast receiver will make a clunking sound.
Strength wise the receivers are about the same. HTH
Retro
Member
And don't forget about the bayonet lug, which is missing in the new M1A models. Also the wooden stock is different too. New SA M1A has a more slimmer stock than the more bulky M14 stocks.
Full-auto M14 is a joke... you can't hit jack with it on full-auto. Semi-auto M1A is the way to go.
SA M1A standard is a fine rifle, extremely accurate with a scope... although the M1A .308 recoil is a little stronger than Garand because M1A is lighter, way lighter than Garand.
Full-auto M14 is a joke... you can't hit jack with it on full-auto. Semi-auto M1A is the way to go.
SA M1A standard is a fine rifle, extremely accurate with a scope... although the M1A .308 recoil is a little stronger than Garand because M1A is lighter, way lighter than Garand.
Bwana John
Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,960
What's the difference between a M1A and a M14?
About $12,000.
About $12,000.
1KPerDay
Member
Where is the select-fire lever/switch on the M14? Just curious.
soul_rapier
Member
Dave Rishar
Member
The method of disassembly is also slightly different. The M1A requires the "twist-n-pray" method of removing the op rod; with the M14, you simply remove the connector and the op rod slides right out.
The point about the difference in sounds between cast and forged receivers is an interesting one. Boston noted the same thing. I was never able to hear either one of them over the report.
There are some methods for partially controlling an automatic M14. Adjusting the forward sling buckle to leave a loop for the weak hand creates a makeshift foregrip, which helps a bit. (I don't remember whether that's from the user's manual or the marksmanship manual, but it's in an official publication somewhere.) Opening the buttplate and resting it on the shoulder is also mentioned but I only found it useful in the sitting position, and not much at that. If it's just for fun, try unsnapping the rear end of the sling and stepping on it.
The point about the difference in sounds between cast and forged receivers is an interesting one. Boston noted the same thing. I was never able to hear either one of them over the report.
There are some methods for partially controlling an automatic M14. Adjusting the forward sling buckle to leave a loop for the weak hand creates a makeshift foregrip, which helps a bit. (I don't remember whether that's from the user's manual or the marksmanship manual, but it's in an official publication somewhere.) Opening the buttplate and resting it on the shoulder is also mentioned but I only found it useful in the sitting position, and not much at that. If it's just for fun, try unsnapping the rear end of the sling and stepping on it.
I find that interesting, too.
My Armscorp M14NM rings like a bell with each round I fire. It has an investment cast receiver, the same receiver that Fulton Armory now markets under their own name. I always thought the sound was simply a function of harmonics, like a tuning fork.
My Armscorp M14NM rings like a bell with each round I fire. It has an investment cast receiver, the same receiver that Fulton Armory now markets under their own name. I always thought the sound was simply a function of harmonics, like a tuning fork.
Nightcrawler
Member
The one difference that hasn't been mentioned? If you're a newbie to the boards and you post an article asking about getting an M14 rifle, a few smart guys will make some unhelpful comments about finding an NFA-transferrable GI M14.
These same guys will turn around and call their 16" Bushmaster semiautos M4s.
Much is made about the M1A receivers being cast instead of forged. Has there been any documentation about the cast receiver failing or being, in practical terms, inferior somehow?
These same guys will turn around and call their 16" Bushmaster semiautos M4s.
Much is made about the M1A receivers being cast instead of forged. Has there been any documentation about the cast receiver failing or being, in practical terms, inferior somehow?
Nightcrawler
Member
The pistol gripped version of the M14 was supposed to be the M15. it was, essentially, an M14 with a pistol grip stock designed to fill the role of of the Browning Automatic Rifle, FAL-O/L2A2, etc.
I don't know if it had a heavier barrel, though. If not, well, that was dumb. Automatic rifles need heavy barrels. In either case it never really went anywhere.
I don't know if it had a heavier barrel, though. If not, well, that was dumb. Automatic rifles need heavy barrels. In either case it never really went anywhere.
Full Auto M14
Original M14 rifles are selective fire capable. Most (90%?) were fitted with a selector lock, making them semi auto only. After Army testing (troop trials) it was determined that 1) give a GI a selective fire weapon, and he sets it on auto, and leaves it there, 2) the M14 is too light for sustained full auto use.
So they removed the selector lever from most of the M14s, and replaced it with a knob that did nothing.
The M14E2 was to be the automatic rifle (replacing the BAR), and had a staright line stock, forward (folding) grip, bipod, and "muzzle stabilizer" (a kind of brake). It worked, but the basic problem was that the M14 reciever is too light to hold up for sustained full auto use. Crack developed in the recievers of test guns. The real problem with the reciever is that it is too light for the full auto rate. This is also why it is difficult to keep the full auto M14 on target. The cyclic rate is too high. I have heard of a modification to the gas system that reduces the rate, allowing accurate full auto fire, and avoiding undue stress on the reciever. Pity the military gave up on the M14 before they figured this out.
My Small Arms repairman class at the ordnance center (Aberdeen Proving Grounds) in 1975 was the last class trained on the M14 rifle, and as the "test" for completion, we drew a "test" rifle, and went to the performance range. The test rifles had certain defects (listed on a card the instructors had), and our test was to inspect the rifle, find the defects, replace the defective parts, and (of course), properly fill out the 2407 repain form. The form was half the grade! After completing this, we handed the rifle and form to one of the instructors (Army Sgts, and Marine Gunnys), who did a quick check on the rifle, compared the form to the listed defects, and then handed us a 20 rnd mag w/15 rnds. We were to fire 5 rnds semi auto, and 10 rnds full auto (short bursts). Rifle was placed in a firing port in the wall (at knneling height), and we went ahead.
I was the third one finished, and I listened to the guys ahead of me. When they went to full auto fire, they were squeezing off 2 rnds (short bursts, remember), and that is about as short as you can manage.
Now, being a young smart*ss, and having owned and shot a couple of different .308 rifles, I knew the recoil wouldn't be very bad, after all, this was a 9lb semi auto. And it wasn't. I decided that instead of trying for a 2 round burst, I would pull off the classic three round burst. I had previously shot the M16A1 on full auto, and there was no recoil to speak of, although after a while the rifle tried to bounce a bit. And I had fired the M60 machine gun, which just kind of shakes back and forth a bit.
So, here I go, to pull off a three round burst. It was an educational experience. My three round burst was six rounds, and moved me from a kneeling to a sitting position!
Recoil with the M14 on full auto is cumulative. The gun fires so fast, you don't fully recover from the first round before the second is pushing you back, and the next, and the next, etc. Each shot moves you further off target. I was moved to the sitting position, but my weapon did not come out of the firing port. I think that was what saved me from a royal butt chewing! I looked up at the instructor Sgt, who glared at me and said in a voice of thunder "SHORT Bursts!!!". I fired two further two round bursts, and then handed the empty rifle to the Sgt, per instructions.
This was my eye opener to light weight full auto fire with the 7.62mm Nato round. Civilian kids just never have the chance to get any experience with that kind of thing, and I remember it vividly to this day. BOY, it was FUN!
I have one of the older Springfield M1a rifles, mine is made up with milsurp parts (except the reciever of course). My rfear sight has the locking bar, so it is originally from a Garand, and my stock has the cut out for the selector lever mounting stud. It's not a match grade, or anything special, but it is special to me. And it shoots at least as well as I do!
So, when you hear someone saying that you can't hit anything with the M14 on full auto, and that the gun won't take it, know that this is true, and not true. As created and issued, it is true, but with a slowed down cyclic rate, it can really perform. Most of us will never get the chance to find that out from hands on experience, and that is sad.
AR designs in 7.62mm Nato may prove to be as good as the M14 (possibly better for semi auto) now that they are getting all the bugs worked out. But they will have to go a long way to be a better battle rifle.
A good M14/M1A is the "ultimate Garand", and you have to work hard to better that.
Original M14 rifles are selective fire capable. Most (90%?) were fitted with a selector lock, making them semi auto only. After Army testing (troop trials) it was determined that 1) give a GI a selective fire weapon, and he sets it on auto, and leaves it there, 2) the M14 is too light for sustained full auto use.
So they removed the selector lever from most of the M14s, and replaced it with a knob that did nothing.
The M14E2 was to be the automatic rifle (replacing the BAR), and had a staright line stock, forward (folding) grip, bipod, and "muzzle stabilizer" (a kind of brake). It worked, but the basic problem was that the M14 reciever is too light to hold up for sustained full auto use. Crack developed in the recievers of test guns. The real problem with the reciever is that it is too light for the full auto rate. This is also why it is difficult to keep the full auto M14 on target. The cyclic rate is too high. I have heard of a modification to the gas system that reduces the rate, allowing accurate full auto fire, and avoiding undue stress on the reciever. Pity the military gave up on the M14 before they figured this out.
My Small Arms repairman class at the ordnance center (Aberdeen Proving Grounds) in 1975 was the last class trained on the M14 rifle, and as the "test" for completion, we drew a "test" rifle, and went to the performance range. The test rifles had certain defects (listed on a card the instructors had), and our test was to inspect the rifle, find the defects, replace the defective parts, and (of course), properly fill out the 2407 repain form. The form was half the grade! After completing this, we handed the rifle and form to one of the instructors (Army Sgts, and Marine Gunnys), who did a quick check on the rifle, compared the form to the listed defects, and then handed us a 20 rnd mag w/15 rnds. We were to fire 5 rnds semi auto, and 10 rnds full auto (short bursts). Rifle was placed in a firing port in the wall (at knneling height), and we went ahead.
I was the third one finished, and I listened to the guys ahead of me. When they went to full auto fire, they were squeezing off 2 rnds (short bursts, remember), and that is about as short as you can manage.
Now, being a young smart*ss, and having owned and shot a couple of different .308 rifles, I knew the recoil wouldn't be very bad, after all, this was a 9lb semi auto. And it wasn't. I decided that instead of trying for a 2 round burst, I would pull off the classic three round burst. I had previously shot the M16A1 on full auto, and there was no recoil to speak of, although after a while the rifle tried to bounce a bit. And I had fired the M60 machine gun, which just kind of shakes back and forth a bit.
So, here I go, to pull off a three round burst. It was an educational experience. My three round burst was six rounds, and moved me from a kneeling to a sitting position!
Recoil with the M14 on full auto is cumulative. The gun fires so fast, you don't fully recover from the first round before the second is pushing you back, and the next, and the next, etc. Each shot moves you further off target. I was moved to the sitting position, but my weapon did not come out of the firing port. I think that was what saved me from a royal butt chewing! I looked up at the instructor Sgt, who glared at me and said in a voice of thunder "SHORT Bursts!!!". I fired two further two round bursts, and then handed the empty rifle to the Sgt, per instructions.
This was my eye opener to light weight full auto fire with the 7.62mm Nato round. Civilian kids just never have the chance to get any experience with that kind of thing, and I remember it vividly to this day. BOY, it was FUN!
I have one of the older Springfield M1a rifles, mine is made up with milsurp parts (except the reciever of course). My rfear sight has the locking bar, so it is originally from a Garand, and my stock has the cut out for the selector lever mounting stud. It's not a match grade, or anything special, but it is special to me. And it shoots at least as well as I do!
So, when you hear someone saying that you can't hit anything with the M14 on full auto, and that the gun won't take it, know that this is true, and not true. As created and issued, it is true, but with a slowed down cyclic rate, it can really perform. Most of us will never get the chance to find that out from hands on experience, and that is sad.
AR designs in 7.62mm Nato may prove to be as good as the M14 (possibly better for semi auto) now that they are getting all the bugs worked out. But they will have to go a long way to be a better battle rifle.
A good M14/M1A is the "ultimate Garand", and you have to work hard to better that.
Eightball
Member
What about a .308 Garand?
Informative story, thanks for sharing.
American By Blood
Member
Posts like 44AMP's are why I read THR.
Thank you for that.
Thank you for that.
wayne in boca
Member
The ringing noise you hear when firing an M14 is not from the receiver,whether forged or cast.It is from the flash suppressor resonating like a tuning fork.I have noticed that the USGI forged suppressors seem to do it more than cast repros.
HorseSoldier
Member
Full-auto is a little uncontrollable with an intermediate round like 5.56mm or 7.62x39mm. In a full-power rifle "a little" is rather significant understatement (well, any rifle more petite than a BAR).
- Status
