M1A fans please comment

[flashhole]

Just what I needed, another homework assignment.

It begs the question, are the Fulton Armory guns with the milled receiver worth the extra money?

[Orlando]

Fultons are cast. Not a darn thing wrong with Fulton or SAI.

[drobs]

Originally Posted by 4V50 GARY

Before you buy, suggest you examine one alongside a M-1 Garand. Pay particular notice of that piece of metal inside the receiver that spans from left and right. It's a couple of inches from the backside of the receiver. That is called the web or bridge of the receiver. For a better view you should field strip the M-1A and the M-1 Garand.

That part serves to cam the firing pin tail away from the bolt face. You don't want a firing pin to be protruding when the bolt goes forward. If it did, you'd have an out of battery firing which can injure the user, spectator and damage the firearm.

If you look at the casted web/bridge on a Springfield (below Serial #49,000 which is every new one they make), they cast it with a huge lump on that bridge. Contrast that to the M-1 Garand and note how clean that is. On the casted Springfield receiver, the tail of the firing pin must work extra hard to overcome that lump. Given time, the tail can break and then the firing pin remain forward its own. Therefore it becomes incumbent for the user to examine the firing pin for signs of wear and to replace it if it appears to be cracking.

You won't find that defect on the Smith Enterprise receiver or the ones that are forged and milled (forgot who does that).

I really don't think that's much of an issue. Solution is to have a spare GI firing pin or 2 plus some spare parts - extractor etc.

Fella over at the M14 forum shot 8500rds before experiencing his 1st broken firing pin.
http://m14forum.com/m14/54175-have-y...iring-pin.html

Some higher round counts:
http://m14forum.com/m14/8142-those-w...ere-m14-s.html

Nice thing about the M1A - spare parts are available both commercial and GI surplus. Can even carry them in the gun's buttstock compartment.

For the price of those high dollar M14's from other companies LRB, Fulton, Smith etc - I'd rather have 2 Springfield M1A's.

[rwilson452]

I was in the Navy. We got the M14s after the Marines stopped using them. During a security alert, More than one young man would go through a water tight door with the M14 a bit too sideways and wind up on his butt because the M14 is longer than the door is wide. No bent barrels. Scratched stocks and in some cases holding it too high would result in a bloody nose.

[mellow_c]

I managed some 5 shot 1 1/2" groups at 100 yards with a basic Springfield Armory 18" scout squad, a 7x scope and quality surplus ammo.

I was pretty happy with that!

If you only want one, I'd go for the scout.

[Reloadron]

More than one young man would go through a water tight door with the M14 a bit too sideways and wind up on his butt because the M14 is longer than the door is wide.

Were you in one of those foreign Navies? All of the ships I was familiar with had water tight hatches, never saw a door on a US Navy Vessel. (Sorry but I just had to..... )

[rwilson452]

Were you in one of those foreign Navies? All of the ships I was familiar with had water tight hatches, never saw a door on a US Navy Vessel. (Sorry but I just had to..... )

Your half right. A hatch takes you from one deck to another. A WTD keeps you on the same deck but goes through a water tight bulkhead. I don't have a photo handy to show you one labeled with the distinctive WTD. Perhaps they changed all that after I left in '81.

[Reloadron]

Just being funny. When I left the USMC in 78 I went DoD and worked for NAESU. As a civilian I made the first and second deployments on the USS Eisenhower but also worked extensively with the NAVAIR community. Rode quite a few carriers including fly on and fly off. Eventually ended up with subs under DoE for Naval Reactors. Had a real nice time over those years. During those years on the carriers the Marine Detachments ran the Security alerts with M16 and man when an alert wend down they were like a swarm of hornets. I enjoyed all my years with the Nav and the people I worked with. My last 25 years were all Navy Nuclear and today I am happily retired.

Ron

[COSteve]

Originally Posted by Reloadron

COSteve:
During my Marine Corps years at each command I was assigned to a barracks, each barracks had an armory and your M14 lived in that armory just as you lived in that barracks. When we drew our rifles out we signed for them, before taking your rifle out for an exercise or to the range for qualifications. When that rifle was returned it had better be immaculate and I mean immaculate. You and not the Armour was responsible for your rifle. If you tried to turn in a dirty rifle you may as well sign your soul over to St. Peter as your ass belonged to the First Sergeant. The armory was expected to store rifles and replace any parts which may have broken. The cleanliness of your rifle was your responsibility and that was quite clear. Even personal weapons stored in the armory were expected to be maintained including clean.

Ron

Same as us in the Army. I didn't clean them but I had to inspect each one when I accepted it and when I issued it and if there was something amiss, I'd fix it.

Besides M14s, as we were a part of the 3rd ACR, I had Colt 1911s and M3 SMG (Grease Guns) in my armory. In addition, I was responsible for the tank weapons, M73's 7.62x51 MG which was an electrically fired version of the 1919 mounted co-axial with the 105mm main gun and the Tank Commander's cupola mounted M85 50 Cal MG as well as some M113 weapons; both the M-60 7.62x51 and M2HB 50 cal MGs.

While I also was trained on the 105mm main guns, I never had to service them. Also, I was a 'stand in' Armorer trained up in Garmish, GR as a result of our Armorer getting a sudden compassionate discharge at the request of his mom upon the death of his brother in RVN. I performed dual roles for about 8 months; Tank Crew Gunner on an M60A1 and Company Armorer at the request of the CO until we rotated back to the States where I was promoted as a Tank Commander.

Military works strangely as when I got to RVN in Sep 1968, they told me that my tank was in heavy maintenance so that I was diverted for 3 weeks to an Avaition unit to act as their emergency Armorer servicing mostly M-60 MGs for their Slicks as I was trained on them. When my tank was released back to the unit, I was reassigned to a squadron in the 4th Cav which was embeded into the 25 Infantry Div (Electric Strawberry) at Cu Chi.

[NMC_EXP]

I competed in highpower across the course for years. Used a fully match conditioned M1A. Heavy barrel, bedded in an oversized stock...etc.

Since "Only accurate rifles are interesting" I highly recommend getting a full size version. If you can afford it get one that is bedded. Preferably NOT in an oversize stock - that part is overkill.

You see a lot of stories about non match conditioned M14 variants shooting the magic minute of angle or close to it with surplus ammo from lower Slobbovia. I suggest you regard these claims with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Reason being the USArmy and USMC rifles team armorers spent a lot of time and taxdollars to rework an M14 to NM specs to make it shoot well. The military NM rifles that shot 1 MOA with match grade ammo were not all that common.

I cannot understand the current fetish with stubby barreled rifles. Short barrel means you are going to lose sight radius. Unless you are a kid with eagle eyes this will have a negative effect on your ability to aim well. And the damn things are loud.

[Duke of Lawn Chair]

I bought the regular old M1A back in the late 80's. Was all I could afford at the time. Still have the rifle just the way it came. It shoots 2 MOA right out of the box. That's all one really needs to clean the course. Made Master with that rifle.

[44 AMP]

M73's 7.62x51 MG which was an electrically fired version of the 1919 mounted co-axial with the 105mm main gun

Sorry, but the only things the M73, M73A1, and M219 have in common with the 1919 is they are .30 caliber, belt fed, recoil operated, and were mounted coaxially with a tank gun.

The M73 was meant to replace the M1919, its greatest advantage was the receiver was several inches shorter than the Browning, and space is always at a premium inside a tank,

Unfortunately, the M73 was an over complicated POS that didn't run very well. They made some changes, and it became the M73A1, and still didn't work very well, They made some more changes, took out some parts and it became the M219.

And, it still didn't work very well. In the late 70s, the M219 was replaced with the M240, a version of the Belgian MAG 58 machine gun, which does work pretty well,

To be honest, sometimes the reason the gun didn't work was the crew. You have to be smarter than the gun, or it won't run right. And not everyone was.

On a gunnery exercise, I was brought a 219, to fix, with the rather cryptic failure description of "doesn't work"...

I inspected it, couldn't see anything wrong, and sent it back. About a half hour later, it was back at my shop van, with a troop saying "it don't work".

I detail stripped the gun, checked everything carefully, there was nothing broken, or damaged. A half hour or so later, the gun, and the troop were back, along with the Lt track commander, who was not a happy camper.

We had some words, which ended with me saying "show me how it doesn't work!" We went out to the track and the loader mounted the gun, and when given the order, loaded it. Instant jam.

I moved the loader out of the way, opened the cover, took out the belt, snapped off 3 or four rounds, then reloaded the gun the CORRECT way. Laid on the hand trigger, and ran through about half a belt without a stoppage.

Called up to the TC, and told him, again, "there's nothing wrong with the GUN!"

There's two ways to load the gun, one with the bolt forward, the other with the bolt back. Do it wrong, it jams. I got a nice thank you, and the loader got ...extra training...

[Reloadron]

COSteve, thanks for sharing that. Brought back a few memories.

Ron

[Charlie98]

I cannot understand the current fetish with stubby barreled rifles.

Because they are fun to shoot, they are handy, they are perfectly fine out to about 200M. Not everyone is lining up at Camp Perry. Both weapons have their place, as do the full-sized AR's and their carbine variants, etc.

[COSteve]

44 AMP, thanks for your information, however, I said I worked on them, not that I liked them. The M60 and M60A1 tanks also had an M85 50 cal cupola mounted MG that was also not well liked. But that's what we had and that's what we kept working.

Another example of more 'stuff we didn't like'; in RVN, the M-48A3's we had also had the M73 with it's problems but it was designed for the M2HB 50 cal in the cupola. The cupola was designed so that the 50 would lay on it's left side so that the belt would feed into the top and the empty brass would eject below. Problem was, the MG didn't like to function on it's side and it was really hard to feed in a new belt so many of us stole a M2 ground mount or pintle mount, cut it short, and welded it to the top of the cupola so that we could mount the M2HB like a ground mount where it both worked reliably and it was easier to maneuver.

The Army I was in really didn't care if we 'liked' what we were given, just if we followed orders. No 'Touchy-Feely', 'Consider My Feelings', or 'Politically Correct' considerations.

They were sort of funny that way.

[COSteve]

Originally Posted by Reloadron

During 1969 I trained in Marine Corps boot camp and ITR with the M14 rifle, by the time I reached Vietnam in 1972 we were issued the M16.

So maybe owning a M1A is a nostalgia thing but I really, to this day, enjoy that rifle.

I hear ya!! Basic for me was Summer of 1967 and we used the M14s. I loved the M14 and after winning the company qualification. Then, each company winner competed in a training cycle wide competition at 600yds. I came in second and forever was wedded to the M14. My son loves our M1 Garands which I understand but nothing can compare to the memories of my M14.

Then, in late 1968 when I got to RVN, we were issued those toy M16A1s. 1s time I ever handled one I was not impressed as it felt like a toy. Lucky for me, I only used them for night bunker duty during attacks and when we went to Saigon on pass. The rest of the time my 'issue weapons' were my 90mm main gun, my Tank Commander M2HB MG, and my personal 1911.

[flashhole]

So if the Loaded rifle didn't have the flash suppressor what is the loss? Seems like it might be a plus losing 3" of length w/o a ballistic loss.

My Mini 14 doesn't have a flash suppressor and I don't have any issues with it.

For NY compliant I prefer the detachable magazine over the suppressor.

The trade-off for Ny compliance is fixed magazine or no flash suppressor.

[drobs]

In your shoes I'd take the detachable magazines over the flash hider.
I do recall that neither the flash hider or muzzle brake is legal in NY.

Here's a NY legal M1A



http://ddsranch.com/springfield-armo...t-legal-rifle/

https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/...thetic+Stk+Blk

You might want to go visit a NY gun shop to see what is what.
https://www.campsitesportshop.com/ht...-compliant.asp
This shop carries all styles of M1A's and offers 2 ways of making them NY Legal:

"1-We can permanently weld a cap on the muzzle, replacing the muzzle brake.
2-We can fix the magazine in the firearm making it non removable."

[David R]

I live in NY and have an M1A. I called the safe act phone number.
I was told they do not like the threaded barrel. I had to file off the threads and weld the front sight on in 4 equadistant places. I am a welder. It's done.

David

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[flashhole]

This is good info and thanks for the pic. I've been looking at a couple of the links already.

The picture is very helpful, I was wondering how the front sight would be positioned w/o the suppressor. It appears you lose a bit of sight radius.

Seems to me there would be a benefit to a ported non-threaded barrel.

[agtman]

I live in NY and have an M1A. I called the safe act phone number.
I was told they do not like the threaded barrel. I had to file off the threads and weld the front sight on in 4 equadistant places. I am a welder. It's done.

Gawd that's awful ... Legally-compelled cosmetic surgery on an otherwise perfectly good battle rifle.

I'd rather move.

[flashhole]

How does barrel thickness compare between the Scout and the Loaded? Is the Scout barrel both shorter and thinner? I am leaning hard toward the Loaded with the medium thickness barrel. I like the looks of the gun better w/o the suppressor.

[davidsog]

The sentence before the one you highlighted does not say the problem was with the service rifles in general, it was 30% of that batch of rebuilds that had bent barrels, oversize gas cylinders, etc.

I never intended or claimed that bent barrels were the sole reason the rifle had the shortest service life of any small arms in modern US Army History.

I said it was susceptible to bent barrels and that is a fact. My 26 1/2 years of US Army service were not at a Depot Level maintenance facility. I was a trigger puller (11B) in B co. 1/75th and then did 21 years with all but 3 of those years on ODA's after selection. Of those 3 years, I spent 2.5 of them teaching SUT at JFKSWC.

The M14/M1A is a great rifle and a great range gun especially if you like tinkering with weapons for accuracy as the M1A requires it which is one reason why Springfield Armory offers so many variants beyond the basic rifle. I carried an M21 IN THE GMV on all my subsequent tours to Afghanistan after my first one primarily for squirters.

However as a frontline infantryman's tool, the M14 is far from ideal.

A M14 Rifle Cost Analysis report that gave rounds used and over haul schedules from rounds fired states M14 annual usage is 3,500 rounds to overhaul and 599rds MBTF. Does not sound much like a hard use fighting gun…

In fact, it had at least as many problems as the M16, and a greater failure rate in testing.

https://www.quora.com/In-Vietnam-how...are-to-the-M16

http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/th...he-m14-legend/



Here is the US Army report:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/677383.pdf

If you want a fun and cool gun to go to the range, the M14 series is a great pick IMHO. If you want a weapon for infantry combat or SHTF rifle, then it not so great, IMHO.

[agtman]

If you want a fun and cool gun to go to the range, the M14 series is a great pick IMHO. If you want a weapon for infantry combat or SHTF rifle, then it not so great, IMHO.

Not getting that last part ...

You seem to be assuming that any given "SHTF" event and "infantry combat" will be of the same nature and intensity.

As bad as the L.A. riots were in places, it still wasn't Blackhawk Down.

Excluding the always entertaining zombie and Road Warrior fantasies, any realistic break-down in the social order in which sporadic violence ensues can surely be adequately addressed - in terms of personal and family defense - by an M14/M1A weapon, provided the user knows what he's doing.

In one of his tactical training videos, the well-known Travis Haley was heard to comment: "If the ballon ever goes up, it's a 5.56 world."

Maybe. But even then I'm not ready to get rid of my M1A - or my M1 Garands either.

[davidsog]

Not getting that last part ...

You seem to be assuming that any given "SHTF" event and "infantry combat" will be of the same nature and intensity.

I said nothing of the sort but thanks for the implication it takes Bigfoot, zombies, nuclear war, or a Spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet.



Just going off my own experience in two way shooting ranges.

"Infantry Style" combat is simply using a rifle to engage multiple assailants and multiple shooting positions requiring magazine reloads.

In other words, moving under fire is required to reach cover to either withdraw or gain positional advantage in the firefight requiring more than one magazine to end the fight.

I agree it occurs less frequently in comparison to the stationary single magazine fight but it most certainly does occur.