What's your favorite M1A?

[Axxe55]

Every gun the M14 replaced and the guns that were adopted to make up for the M14's shortcomings all had longer service lives than the M14

Every rifle that has served our military has had shortcomings. I've not said that the M14 didn't have it's own faults, as did the initial M16's when they were adopted. The M14 still serves a purpose with the military to this day, just not as the standard service rifle. The M16 and it's variants serve that need just much better.

 

[A1Oni]

Some of us also grew up being taught showing respect for our elders, and having some manners when interacting with people. Seems some were lacking it in their upbringing, or choose to ignore it.

Seems being rude and bad manners is more common with the younger generations these days.

But I'm cool with it. Being rude, and bad manners, along with being disrespectful have been the downfall of quite a few in getting banned on this forum. Some are just too stupid to realize they are their own worst enemies!

@Tnhawk, Thank you for stepping up and serving sir. Some of us still have mucho respect for veterans and currently serving soldiers.

you should try looking in a mirror sometime.

 

[jjkukla]

To the comment about .308/7.62 soft/hard primers... many pages back before the d!ck measuring contest began...
I've shot plenty of both ammo types out of my Standard. Reloaded a ton of it too. Where you're most likely to see slamfire issues is in reloads with improperly seated primers. YMMV.

 

[zackmars]

Every rifle that has served our military has had shortcomings. I've not said that the M14 didn't have it's own faults, as did the initial M16's when they were adopted. The M14 still serves a purpose with the military to this day, just not as the standard service rifle. The M16 and it's variants serve that need just much better.

The M14 did not just have "shortcomings" the entire concept from the very start was flawed. It is fine to have nostalgia, but the M14 was hot garbage. Predecessor designs, and it's contemporaries are far superior.

As far as the M14 serving today, yeah. It was literally the only semi auto rifle in .308 we had. In an alternate universe, there's probably a bunch of Armalites or FAL's doing the same thing

The initial M16's were great, and were beloved by advisors. Changes to the M16, the powder, the lack of chrome lining, the lack of cleaning kits were all mandated by the government. The US had spent plenty of time in humid jungles, they knew what they were doing, what those changes would do to the gun. Lots of big names backed the M14, a program so fraught with corruption and production failures, the government literally stopped procuring them during a major war.


If you enjoy it fine, but the M14 was not a good rifle.

 

[jjkukla]

.So, someone said there could be a problem shooting .308 out of an M1 because of softer primers as opposed to 7.62x51 NATO ammo. Is there a rifle, very similar to an M1, that is specifically chambered for .308?

Bumping this.

So as a newer owner of an M1A standard, what is everyone's thoughts on ammo. Are you using factory 308 or stick with standard 7.62 Nato spec ammo? The manual says 308 can be used, but also advises against it due soft primers causing slamfires. I'd like to use some factory 308 hunting ammo and try to get a pig with it. At the same time I like my face as currently configured and prefer to keep all my fingers.

Gents, see my response above... only issues I've ever heard of were in reloads with improperly seated primers. I say "buy and shoot quality, factory .308 with confidence."
Good luck!

 

[Axxe55]

The M14 did not just have "shortcomings" the entire concept from the very start was flawed. It is fine to have nostalgia, but the M14 was hot garbage. Predecessor designs, and it's contemporaries are far superior.

As far as the M14 serving today, yeah. It was literally the only semi auto rifle in .308 we had. In an alternate universe, there's probably a bunch of Armalites or FAL's doing the same thing

The initial M16's were great, and were beloved by advisors. Changes to the M16, the powder, the lack of chrome lining, the lack of cleaning kits were all mandated by the government. The US had spent plenty of time in humid jungles, they knew what they were doing, what those changes would do to the gun. Lots of big names backed the M14, a program so fraught with corruption and production failures, the government literally stopped procuring them during a major war.


If you enjoy it fine, but the M14 was not a good rifle.

I just happen to know a few former servicemen that served during Vietnam that thought the M14 was superior rifle to the M16.

That said, the M14 was never meant to serve long term in the military arsenals. It was an inter-rim rifle, meant to bridge the gap from old to new. Hence the reason the M16 was adopted. In many ways considering how warfare was going in the future, the M16 was much better suited rifle. But in the beginning it had it's own problems, which were corrected.

 

[zackmars]

I just happen to know a few former servicemen that served during Vietnam that thought the M14 was superior rifle to the M16.

That said, the M14 was never meant to serve long term in the military arsenals. It was an inter-rim rifle, meant to bridge the gap from old to new. Hence the reason the M16 was adopted. In many ways considering how warfare was going in the future, the M16 was much better suited rifle. But in the beginning it had it's own problems, which were corrected.

And i know a few who didn't like the m14, but were rather fond of the m16. It doesn't mean much. I am not sure why you are trying to bring me into this argument.

No, the M14 was not an interim rifle, i am not sure where you got that from, the M14 was a small part in a larger family of weapons, designed to replace every small arm in military service, the Garand, thompson, BAR, carbine, 1919a6, M3, and 1903 Springfield. The M14 failed at almost all. It did a below par job at replacing the Garand, but did ok enough. By that time the M1 action was already at it's limit.

The M16 OTOH was widely seen as an interim solution, until SPIW could get an acceptable firearm together.
They never did. And over 60 years later the M16 is still just as modern and relevant as it was back when the M14 program fell flat on its face

 

[Eli]

The M14 did not just have "shortcomings" the entire concept from the very start was flawed. It is fine to have nostalgia, but the M14 was hot garbage. Predecessor designs, and it's contemporaries are far superior.

As far as the M14 serving today, yeah. It was literally the only semi auto rifle in .308 we had. In an alternate universe, there's probably a bunch of Armalites or FAL's doing the same thing

The initial M16's were great, and were beloved by advisors. Changes to the M16, the powder, the lack of chrome lining, the lack of cleaning kits were all mandated by the government. The US had spent plenty of time in humid jungles, they knew what they were doing, what those changes would do to the gun. Lots of big names backed the M14, a program so fraught with corruption and production failures, the government literally stopped procuring them during a major war.


If you enjoy it fine, but the M14 was not a good rifle.

The AR-10 should have been adopted, it was far superior to the M14, but the AR-10 was intentionally sabotaged and abused to failure.

Eli

 

[A1Oni]

The AR-10 should have been adopted, it was far superior to the M14, but the AR-10 was intentionally sabotaged and abused to failure.

Eli

aint no truer words been said.

 

[Axxe55]

And i know a few who didn't like the m14, but were rather fond of the m16. It doesn't mean much. I am not sure why you are trying to bring me into this argument.

No, the M14 was not an interim rifle, i am not sure where you got that from, the M14 was a small part in a larger family of weapons, designed to replace every small arm in military service, the Garand, thompson, BAR, carbine, 1919a6, M3, and 1903 Springfield. The M14 failed at almost all. It did a below par job at replacing the Garand, but did ok enough. By that time the M1 action was already at it's limit.

The M16 OTOH was widely seen as an interim solution, until SPIW could get an acceptable firearm together.
They never did. And over 60 years later the M16 is still just as modern and relevant as it was back when the M14 program fell flat on its face

The article I read many years ago, stated exactly as you said, that the M14 was meant to fill the role of several different weapons, as an interim replacement until more suitable weapons could be made to fill those roles.

 

[Moonpie]

While we're at it the German MG 3 should've been adopted instead of the Pig.

 

[zackmars]

The article I read many years ago, stated exactly as you said, that the M14 was meant to fill the role of several different weapons, as an interim replacement until more suitable weapons could be made to fill those roles.

False. The M14 was meant to be a full replacment. The M16 was only procured AFTER the M14 was no longer produced.

The M60 was procured when someone with half a lick of sense realized the M15 was not going to work

I would like to see your source, because what you say contradicts everything out there.

 

[Axxe55]

False. The M14 was meant to be a full replacment. The M16 was only procured AFTER the M14 was no longer produced.

The M60 was procured when someone with half a lick of sense realized the M15 was not going to work

I would like to see your source, because what you say contradicts everything out there.

I read that article many years ago, in a magazine of all things. Simple fact is, there were a lot of politics in play at the time regarding both rifles. Those in support for the M14, and against the M16, and vice versa. I have read many conflicting stories about both rifles over the years, as well as conflicting stories about both from soldiers actually having used them in combat.

I merely mentioned that article as an alternate viewpoint on the M14. Nothing more. We are talking about things that happened nearly sixty years ago, I have to assume some information about one of the other has probably been lost to time. And many people writing articles, are merely expressing their opinions one way or the other. And unless they had a direct involvement in the selection of either rifle, or served during the Vietnam conflict with either rifle, it is essentially just a person opinion.

I related my uncle's choice in choosing the M14 in Vietnam, and that was his first tour in 1968. So should I discount his thoughts and opinions on the M14, and just accept that your opinions are more valid on this? Over someone that was actually there; using the rifle?

 

[baboon]

I related my uncle's choice in choosing the M14 in Vietnam, and that was his first tour in 1968. So should I discount his thoughts and opinions on the M14, and just accept that your opinions are more valid on this? Over someone that was actually there; using the rifle?

Axxe by chance is your uncle still around? I wonder if you asked him of the weapons available on a PBR including the M-60 & a single Ma Duce, a twin Ma Duces or the Mk18, if he preferred any of those over the M-14?

Seem the Twin offered the most fire power & best protection.

 

[zackmars]

I read that article many years ago, in a magazine of all things. Simple fact is, there were a lot of politics in play at the time regarding both rifles. Those in support for the M14, and against the M16, and vice versa. I have read many conflicting stories about both rifles over the years, as well as conflicting stories about both from soldiers actually having used them in combat.

I merely mentioned that article as an alternate viewpoint on the M14. Nothing more. We are talking about things that happened nearly sixty years ago, I have to assume some information about one of the other has probably been lost to time. And many people writing articles, are merely expressing their opinions one way or the other. And unless they had a direct involvement in the selection of either rifle, or served during the Vietnam conflict with either rifle, it is essentially just a person opinion.

I related my uncle's choice in choosing the M14 in Vietnam, and that was his first tour in 1968. So should I discount his thoughts and opinions on the M14, and just accept that your opinions are more valid on this? Over someone that was actually there; using the rifle?

There were no politics in favor of the M16, aside from MacNamara, but that was less politics, and more of someone who was tired of a rifle that even the guys who designed it couldn't properly build.

You can mention all the stuff you want, but heres the deal. Everything about the M14's trial and adoption, and subsequent failure is well known, public domain, dried ink. Facts. You don't see me here talking about how the AR15 is a slayer of gods, best weapon ever made, mana from heaven. I could call it an opinion, but fact it is not.

As per your Uncle's choice, i did not say anything other than it doesn't matter, and it doesn't. I am sorry, and i mean no disrespect by that, but your Uncle liking the gun doesn't make up for all the cheating it took to adopt the gun or all the cheating it took to make the M16 look bad, nor does it make up for the almost 4 years the US spent in a war, without getting any new rifles in.

If you want to talk about troops opinions on the M14, fine, but that is not the facts of the M14. Stephen E Ambrose wrote a lot of books about WW2, virtually every book was a simple retelling of stories from vets. These books, like your Uncle's stories have their place. But that place is not in objective history

 

[Axxe55]

Axxe by chance is your uncle still around? I wonder if you asked him of the weapons available on a PBR including the M-60 & a single Ma Duce, a twin Ma Duces or the Mk18, if he preferred any of those over the M-14?

Seem the Twin offered the most fire power & best protection.

Nope. He passed away several years ago.

There were no politics in favor of the M16, aside from MacNamara, but that was less politics, and more of someone who was tired of a rifle that even the guys who designed it couldn't properly build.

You can mention all the stuff you want, but heres the deal. Everything about the M14's trial and adoption, and subsequent failure is well known, public domain, dried ink. Facts. You don't see me here talking about how the AR15 is a slayer of gods, best weapon ever made, mana from heaven. I could call it an opinion, but fact it is not.

As per your Uncle's choice, i did not say anything other than it doesn't matter, and it doesn't. I am sorry, and i mean no disrespect by that, but your Uncle liking the gun doesn't make up for all the cheating it took to adopt the gun or all the cheating it took to make the M16 look bad, nor does it make up for the almost 4 years the US spent in a war, without getting any new rifles in.

If you want to talk about troops opinions on the M14, fine, but that is not the facts of the M14. Stephen E Ambrose wrote a lot of books about WW2, virtually every book was a simple retelling of stories from vets. These books, like your Uncle's stories have their place. But that place is not in objective history

I'll take your opinions under advisement.

 

[zackmars]

Nope. He passed away several years ago.

I'll take your opinions under advisement.

If you can refute what i say, i am all ears

 

[Axxe55]

If you can refute what i say, i am all ears

Personally, I just don't have any desire or reason to discuss the point, since we see this in a different manner.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[zackmars]

Personally, I just don't have any desire or reason to discuss the point, since we see this in a different manner.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Out of curiously, what exactly do you see as a different matter? What users thought of the M14 and what was happening behind the scenes can be two different things. Like i said earlier, if you like it, fine. That doesn't make it good.

Personal opinions do not mean history is wrong

 

[Axxe55]

Out of curiously, what exactly do you see as a different matter? What users thought of the M14 and what was happening behind the scenes can be two different things. Like i said earlier, if you like it, fine. That doesn't make it good.

Personal opinions do not mean history is wrong

I just don't see any need to beat this dead horse any further. Serves no purpose whatsoever.

Pretty much both of us have a bias. Your's is against, and mine is for.

I think my previous posts speak clearly as to my thoughts and opinions on the rifles. I have never once said they were perfect, or without faults. I believe I cans safely say the same thing about any rifle platform, including the AR15/M16 platform.

Several have mentioned other rifles that could have been better suited than the M14. Something we may never know for a fact. I believe the AR10 platform could have been developed into a great rifle for the military as well.