Yes, that’s what I meant. 15 magazines of Norinco ball is impressive though. I assume it fired without a hitch?
I really like my SOCOM16… A rocking bit-o-nostalgia… Foe me anyhow… It’s short, light and points real good… Ron
I own an M1A. Competed with an M-14 in the yellow-glasses areana.
On a certain level, I like an M-14 but I feel like I am carrying a pole vault. I made the mistake of taking it deer hunting once. Not a good rifle to navigate Rhododendron thickets with.
A genuine M14 will run through mags of GI ammo on auto when in spec, serviced, and well lubed. The problem is keeping it in that spec, the service intervals, maintainability away from the bench and depot. Further, the overall efficiency and suitability to the tasks assigned which can exacerbate issues.
It ran like scalding water through a muzzle loader. I still wish I had it.
If you would have bothered to read my post carefully you would have noted my list was of major differences between the two and even hinted at op rod reconfiguration between the two.
I might as well ask here right now:
How big of an issue is it that M1As are cast rather than forged (as guns to spec are)?
I’ve always bagged on M1As for being cast, but does it matter at the end of the day?
I don’t recall reading of receiver failures with the investment casting method. The shoddiness of quality seems to be from using inferior parts after the real GI stuff from TRW, winchester, etc dried up.
It is interesting that the bolt impact area on the receiver heel is actually slightly thicker on the cast receiver…
I have seen the “cast vs forged” debate in other online gun forums dedicated to the FAL or M14 end up more heated than 45 vs 9mm or AK vs AR. I have seen good arguments presented for both sides, and honestly don’t know enough one way or the other.
It will out last yoy
Now the real question is, “Who is Yoy?”.
I’m not really an M-14 guy, so I had no idea that there were receiver wars like there are caliber wars. Wow!
I was just under the impression that the M1As were cast because the company was trying to cheap-out and that they are overpriced too.
I spent several years tuning and shooting M14s recreationally, so I don’t have any “hard use” information.
What I did find was that I liked them quite a bit, but once you get used to AR modularity, the optics mounting solutions are all very annoying.
It’s also difficult, in my experience, to get them reliably much under 2 MOA without compromising reliability a bit.
All of the guns I built were on Norinco barrels and receivers, of a generation later than the ones available in the US, some of which I believe to have been heat-treated poorly. The ones we have up here are often quite good. They are forged of a steel that I believe to be 8620? But it has been a few years since I looked in to that.
you. sorry sent that on the ipod
I am thinking of getting a M1A for three gun now instead of a SCAR or a PredatOBR at least for now. Partly because of the lower cost and if I get the M1A I won’t put optics on it. Down the road I will still get a PredatOBR or SCAR. The main reason I want a M1A is for the nostalga and lower cost.
Pat
Assuming the receiver is properly heat treated, being machined from an investment casting doesn’t matter for practical purposes.
Uncle Sam did a lot of field testing of the M14 rifle in various comparison trials between 1956 and 1977. The following text is representative of the results in these tests. Reproduced with permission from the author, from M14 Rifle History and Development Fifth Edition:
"In January 1968, the U. S. Department of Defense Weapon Systems Evaluation Group (WSEG) tested the reliability of the M14 and M16A1 rifles at Fort Sherman in Panama under field conditions designed to simulate the environment faced by American troops in the Republic of Viet Nam at the time. Both rifles were tested in beach, swamp, rain forest and dry climate conditions by a total of 302 U. S. Marines divided into four platoons. The M14 rifles and M62 tracer and M80 ball ammunition were included in the test as a control against three versions of the M16A1 and various 5.56 mm ammunition compositions. The M14 rifles were shot alternately in semi-automatic and automatic mode. Each M14 rifle was shot with magazines loaded to twenty cartridges except for one in each of the sixteen squads was fired with magazines filled with eighteen rounds. Each of the M14 rifles used in the test was shot approximately 5,700 rounds with only cleaning at noon each of the twelve days of firing.
The WSEG test recorded the following Mean Rounds to First Malfunction for the M14 rifle in each of the four field environments: 1) 1,039 for salt water, spray and sand 2) 1,248 for swamp water and mud 3) 707 for rain forest and 4) 952 for uplands and dust. When the M14 rifle did malfunction, 42 % of the time it was on the first or second round of the magazine. The likelihood of malfunction is highest with the first two rounds in either magazine loading, eighteen or twenty cartridges. This is due to the slightly lower cyclic rate of fire with a full or nearly-full magazine."
Dano, I appreciate you sharing this. Any feedback on the Choate side folders, GTG?
Thx.
My mind says get the SCAR17S but my heart says M14 to the grave. The SCAR17S is much more modern, probably more reliable, a much better optics platform, much more versatile, in all truth a better gun. The M14 is a much more elegant weapon from a more civilized era.
I do not use my M14S in adverse conditions but if I had to use it in real life I would certainly replace the wood with at least a GI synthetic stock as I cannot afford the modular chasis being made for it. One thing I see a lot here, is people complaining that it’s hard to keep it sub 2 MOA without a lot of work and without sacrificing relliability. Well, not all of us are intreersted in 1/2 MO accuracy out of our M14s, most of us are not snipers and are more interested in a practical rifle, which in my non-expert opinion the M14 can be. keep it well lubed, don’t put mud in the chamber, and use a synthetic stock or if you can swing it spend big bucks on a chasis. However, if you re thinking about geting the chasis, for the same amount of money you would be spending on that get a SCAR17S and be done with it. But like I said, just my opinion and I will let the experts talk now.
I know that was slightly off topic, but going back to what was posted about WSEG. Those numbers are interesting, but how do they compare with the M16 that was also tested? Also, the quote seems to suggest automatic fire. Wonder if it would be different in semi-auto only.
Regarding accuracy on the M14, 2.5 " to 3.0 " groups were typical for five round groups of M80 ball at 100 meters at the TRW factory in 1962. From 2008 to 2010, TACOM retrofitted 5,000 rack grade rifles into M14 EBR-RI configuration (Sage stock, Leupold scope, reamed flash suppressor). The average five shot group for these 5,000 rifles was 0.89 " at 100 yards with M118LR ammunition. The barrels were not replaced, both M14 and M14 EBR-RI have the 1960s vintage standard contour chromium plated barrel.