View Full Version : M1A/M14 vs AR10: Durability/Reliability
So, I put my 6.8 project on hold and am really looking into a M1A/M14, most likely a Scout/Squad 18". How would you guys judge that rifle versus a AR10 type platform? A future upgrade to the M1A will be a modern stock such as the JAE100 G2. I live in SoCal so the others (Sage/Vltor) are not really an option, unless there is a "Bullet Button" kind of mag release.
Anyway, just getting some input and suggestions before I pull the trigger, so to speak. ;)
Hey Shark,
The JAE is a good, but very heavy stock... contact Tony @ LAW483 and see if his new synthetic stock is ready for T&E.
As for an 18.0" barreled action... I can't say enough good things about the two that Ron @ Smith Enterprise, Inc. has built for me.
One has a medium heavy Crazy Horse barrel and the other has a standard profile barrel (chrome lined, but no longer available).
Both are chambered for M118LR with 4 grooves and a 1:10 ROT.
I recommend M80HT and what ever else Ron has to offer - this will ensure that you get a rifle that is extremely accurate and ultra reliable.
The medium heavy CH barrel can be turned down to standard profile for additional weight savings with no ill effects.
Visit M14 HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS (http://www.athenswater.com/my_weapons.htm) for additional information on what SEI has built for me.
I owned a sweet ArmaLite AR-10 SPR, but sold it to fund the chrome lined MK14 build... no regrets :)
QuickStrike
02-05-09, 04:36
I got myself an M14 type for just those reasons.
receiver life = 300,000+ rounds
and more reliable than a FAL in desert and really cold weather...
The AR-10 would probably beat it in long term accuracy + ergonomics though. No platform is perfect. :(
buckshot1220
02-05-09, 21:26
For durability/reliability I think you'd be looking at the M1A platform.
Gutshot John
02-05-09, 22:42
receiver life = 300,000+ rounds
and more reliable than a FAL in desert and really cold weather...
Do you have any documentation on that? Which receivers? They aren't all created equal. That said 300K+ rounds? Are you sure about that figure?
The FAL is no more or no less reliable than the M14 in either cold weather or the desert. Moreover the FAL is probably a far more battle-proven platform in either climate.
You can get a military quality FAL for a fraction of the cost of a military quality M14.
If you're not into the FAL, I'd prefer an AR-10 to an M14. IMO it's much more "relevant". The M14 is probably on its last legs.
It seems like the more accuracy a rifle has, the less reliability it also has.
That being said, I wouldn't mind an FAL serving in the "marksman" role with the proper optic.
QuickStrike
02-06-09, 04:47
Do you have any documentation on that? Which receivers? They aren't all created equal. That said 300K+ rounds? Are you sure about that figure?
Pretty sure. Got it from reading Different's (Lee Emerson) stuff.
The U. S. Marine Corps found through competition shooting that the H&R, Springfield Armory and Winchester receivers would last 400,000 rounds and the TRW receivers were good for 450,000 rounds.
For forged receivers, 300,000 rounds is pretty conservative. I should have specified.
The FAL is no more or no less reliable than the M14 in either cold weather or the desert.
Sources?
I doubt that the only reason we rejected the FAL was because it was made by foreigners.
I tend to think that the initial extraction + less bearing surfaces on the bolt/receiver > the FAL's design under those conditions.
Can't find any detailed info on the Army's adoption trials though.
The M14 is probably on its last legs.
Do you have any documentation on that?
The M14 out shoots the KAC M110 and it's more reliable.
The SCAR-H has big reliability problems and it's delayed again.
The M14 is standing firm.
.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 08:33
Pretty sure. Got it from reading Different's (Lee Emerson) stuff.
For forged receivers, 300,000 rounds is pretty conservative. I should have specified.
I meant which brands.
I remain skeptical.
Sources?
I doubt that the only reason we rejected the FAL was because it was made by foreigners.
You're right, it mostly had to do with politics as most procurement decisions are made. That said, the M14 was the shortest-lived main battle rifle ever fielded in US inventories.
And yet dozens of other NATO nations adopted it and used it in many conflicts throughout the globe gaining the nick name "the right arm of democracy", but I'm sure they got that name because they're unreliable in combat. :rolleyes:
That said, your argument works against the M14 as well. I doubt the reason that the Army is procuring M110s is because they're satisfied with the M14 platform.
I tend to think that the initial extraction + less bearing surfaces on the bolt/receiver > the FAL's design under those conditions.
Can't find any detailed info on the Army's adoption trials though.
So you were engaging in conjecture when you said that FALs were less reliable in sand than a FAL? That's fine, just be sure you say it's conjecture.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 08:39
Do you have any documentation on that?
The M14 out shoots the KAC M110 and it's more reliable.
The SCAR-H has big reliability problems and it's delayed again.
The M14 is standing firm.
If you'll read my statement it says "probably" which is a pretty big modifier. If Quickstrike had said "probably less reliable in sand" I wouldn't have replied at all.
A military quality M14 runs in the neighborhood of $4K. The kind still in use by the military bears NO resemblance to a mass-produced main battle rifle. It's a specialized piece of kit which has enough short-comings that the military is actively looking for a quality replacement (M110 and SCAR-H which you mentioned).
By definition this would mean it's on its last legs. But ultimately I'm not talking about the M14 by itself. I'm talking about the M14 in comparison to another platform the AR-10.
The AR-10 is cheaper, more reliable for the money and has a longer future in military inventories than the M14. It similarly has the advantage of consistency across the AR platform.
You're free of course to spend thousands of dollars that could otherwise be spent on ammo and training on a rifle that is becoming more and more of a museum piece.
If you'll read my statement it says "probably" which is a pretty big modifier.
OK, pure conjecture on your part.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 08:45
OK, pure conjecture on your part.
I'd have thought the difference between saying that an "m14 is more reliable in sand/arctic than the FAL" and saying "the M14 is PROBABLY on its last legs" were obvious. If not then let me clarify:
Unless some radical new killer-app is found for the M14 it's on its last legs in military service.
It's currently being used as a stopgap and I don't know of anyone that is suggesting that it's use will be increased. If you know something different, than I'm all ears.
I'd have thought the difference between saying that an "m14 is more reliable in sand/arctic than the FAL" and saying "the M14 is PROBABLY on its last legs" were obvious. If not then let me clarify:
Unless some radical new killer-app is found for the M14 it's on its last legs in military service.
It's currently being used as a stopgap and I don't know of anyone that is suggesting that it's use will be increased. If you know something different, than I'm all ears.
The "stopgap" argument you are using is really getting old, more than 10 years old. Give it a rest.
In light of the current economic situation and liberal administration there is little if any chance that a new and extremely
expensive, un-proven replacement (M110 & SCAR-H) will hit the battlefield in large numbers in the next 10 years.
The M14 isn't going away anytime soon, as a matter of fact, more M14s will be pressed into service as time goes on.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 09:23
The "stopgap" argument you are using is really getting old, more than 10 years old. Give it a rest.
Why if it's still valid? You can't just wish it away and you certainly haven't addressed that shortcoming. The military is looking for another platform. The M14 remains nothing more than a stopgap. Sorry but it's true.
Every new platform is unproven until it's fielded and proven. Claiming a platform is "unproven" is a bit of a stretch in this regard. The military is putting significant resources into the M110 and SCAR for the future. This future does NOT include the M14. Might there still be a few in the inventory, sure, but so what?
It remains a specialized weapon used in a limited role and the military is in the process of looking for a replacement to fill that role. A specialized weapon that is going to be replaced by a specialized weapon does not bode well for its future.
The M14 isn't going away anytime soon, as a matter of fact, more M14s will be pressed into service as time goes on.
So they're putting them back in production? Where are they going to get more? Got some solid information to base that on?
It remains a specialized weapon used in a limited role.
So what? We have several specialized weapons in our tool box.
Wish all you want, but there is no logical reason to replace the M14.
So they're putting them back in production?
:rolleyes: Where did you get that from?
Since the M4 is the work horse of our troops on the ground, I would think the
focus would be placed on enhancing and or replacing it with something new.
There is no reason to replace the M14.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 09:34
So what? We have several specialized weapons in our tool box.
Wish all you want, but there is no logical reason to replace the M14.
Tell it to the military. The point remains, the AR platform is a far more economic choice.
:rolleyes: Where did you get that from?
You...
more M14s will be pressed into service as time goes on.
If they're simply using M14s that already exist in the inventory and they're not going back into production, than your argument is even less valid. They're putting NO new resources into the M14.
Since the M4 is the work horse of our troops on the ground, I would think the
focus would be placed on enhancing and or replacing it with something new.
There is no reason to replace the M14.
Nonsense.
They're putting NO new resources into the M14.
Nonsense.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 09:50
Nonsense.
If you say so, except you're now contradicting yourself. You say they're going to be using "more" m14s but then you similarly say that they're not manufacturing "new" ones.
But I'll bite what new resources is the military putting into the M14 rifle?
Especially when you factor in the opportunity cost of ammunition and training there is no qualitative or quantitative advantage of an M14 over an AR-10.
If you really just like how "cool" the M14 is, that's fine, but that remains an aesthetic choice that has a $1-2k price point attached to it.
Gutshot John, you need to do some homework and research on the
subject - until then, you can play your word games all by yourself.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 10:02
Gutshot John, you need to do some homework and research on the
subject - until then, you can play your word games all by yourself.
Funny, I was going to make the same recommendation. Moreover you'd be wrong. I researched this extensively for the better part of a decade when I was considering the M14 platform and discredited it because it cost too much with NO appreciable advantage over either the FAL or the AR-10. My preference is for the FAL, but since that's not part of the OP I offered the opinion that the AR was a better choice for the reasons I specified.
But by all means, don't take my word for it, a simple search of the forums will reveal the problems I've stated about the M14 are observed by more than just me.
IF the M14 is ever circulated to CMP, that might change things a bit, but I don't really see that happening. If it did, I'd definitely pick up an M14.
But by all means, don't take my word for it, a simple search of the forums will reveal the problems I've stated about the M14 are observed by more than just me.
IF the M14 is ever circulated to CMP, that might change things a bit, but I don't really see that happening. If it did, I'd definitely pick up an M14.
The #1 observed problem with the M14 is that it is a direct threat to KAC and their M110.
Once a machine gun, always a machine gun. The M14 will never be available via CMP.
The #1 observed problem with the M14 is that it is a direct threat to KAC and their M110.
Wow.
So, where are you getting that the SCAR-H is having issues? Or the 417?
I know you dig the M14, but I'm having a hard time with some of the things you've layed out in this thread.
If no one is building new M14's on a military contract basis, it's a dead end.
The SCAR-H has big reliability problems and it's delayed again.
Provide the source, or retract the statement. Your choice.
ETA: I see Templar beat me to the punch.
There is no need to make more M14s, the current inventory of M14s is
more than enough to supply the specialized needs they are now filling.
If more are needed, we can get them back from the countries we gave them to.
Many improved new production parts are available and more are on the way.
If the SCAR-H was such a reliable rifle then why is it not in widespread usage?
Prove to me that it's not got problems.
argh, I was looking forward to a discussion of reliablity or something else other then this rehash of the future of the M-14. It's a stop gap. If you don't believe it look around. The next generation of 7.62mm rifles are begining to come out and the AR based systems like the M-110 are a transitional model.
The EBR/MK14 wieghts about the same as the M-249 for peets sake.
If the SCAR-H was such a reliable rifle then why is it not in widespread usage? Prove to me that it's not got problems.
You are making the claims. Provide the source, or retract the statement. Or alternately, admit you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Those are your three choices. Your move.
The EBR/MK14 wieghts about the same as the M-249 for peets sake.
There is no MK14 EBR that weighs 23 pounds.
If the SCAR-H was such a reliable rifle then why is it not in widespread usage?
Prove to me that it's not got problems.
That's you're argument?
You either need to provide documentable proof or first hand experience, or retract your statement.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 10:59
If the SCAR-H was such a reliable rifle then why is it not in widespread usage?
Prove to me that it's not got problems.
Again all new weapon systems go through a process of development where problems are worked out. That said your logic can be used against you.
If the M14 was such an reliable rifle, why are they developing replacements? 'Prove that it's not got problems.'
Two sides to that coin.
It's fine by me if you want to remove the SCAR-H from
the discussion and stick to the M1A/M14 and AR-10 :)
You brought it up, you made the statement, either have verifiable evidence or you need to retract the statement that you made, period.
Or find another board to post on.
Do you have any documentation on that?
The M14 out shoots the KAC M110 and it's more reliable.
The SCAR-H has big reliability problems and it's delayed again.
The M14 is standing firm.
.
I will put our M110 up against any M14.
There is a reason why we won SASS, and others including M14 variants did not.
...and others including M14 variants did not.
Was any M14 variant even invited?
None made the downselect, however 2 or three vendors did submit a M14 based platform for the intial solicitation. I am still picking way through the understand of RFI/RFP's - but unless the RFP would say M16 style system in definitive literature, then anyone building a FN, M14, etc could compete.
A M16FOW based platform was a no brainer for troop training, armorer training, and general muscle memory under stress.
The Mk17 (SCAR-H) is a SOCOM item, not big Army, so commentary on that is an issue between the services.
* I am sure anyone fielding a Mk17 from a budetary side would love Big Army to adopt it, as then their command would not have to pay. This is why some units will opt for the M110 rather than the Mk11 as it is Army furnished.
The Army has issued out somewhere between 1200 and 2500 M14s from the roughly 98,000 in fieldable stock at Anniston (I had the exact fielded numbers once but would have to google it now). The G3, G4, TRADOC, and the Chief of Infantry non-concurred (disagreed) with the requesting Division Commanders but the Army Chief of Staff said if they're free and available issue them out.
There are no training courses for the M14 available at Fort Benning (the Infantry School) or Aberdeen (the Ordnance School). What you get is what you got. National Guard and Reserve units rely on their former M14 competitors and gunsmiths/armorers with Camp Perry-type experience to keep these weapons tuned and running.
There is no Army effort to refurb these weapons. They are issued with a magazine and a few basic issue items (if you're lucky). Brian Sain and Americansnipers.org solicit and send out parts and accessories to keep many of these weapons running.
A few units are spending their valuable GWOT Supplemental money to get SEI to modify them. These are not rifles being modified by Mother Army.
Army has let a few small contracts for op rods, scope mounts, magazines, and other small repair parts as M14s are otherwise repaired by cannibalization.
The Navy has modified a few weapons using SOCOM (non-service) dollars.
Rock Island submitted two sample rifles at the initial technology review for the XM-110 requirements-drafting board. I was there when they fired them on the range. They failed miserably.
One of the M14s used to document the 2005 Infantry Designated Marksman Doctrine, Operations, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF) Strategy review came direct from stocks at Anniston. It was a beautiful rifle that shot 7 minutes of angle.
That said the M-110 has some pretty significant initial fielding problems.
The SCAR-H is still in R&D and has not been fielded.
Rock Island submitted two sample rifles at the initial technology review for the XM-110 requirements-drafting board. I was there when they fired them on the range. They failed miserably.
That settles that. Thank you, Sir.
That said the M-110 has some pretty significant initial fielding problems.
Admittedly this was the first time we had coated rifle, and the low temps used to cure the paint did not seem to get along well with the trigger assembly, this is now done seperate. Secondly the contract allows for 30 rds to be fired, 1 of those is a proof round. So 29 rounds on the range to test the system until its issued, as opposed to 200 rounds for a Mk11. Then coating and inspection and shipping. Its not perfect, but it is what the contract specifies.
We learned a lot with the intial fielding, and not a day goes by that we do not try to improve our techniques. Lt. Col. Dave Lutz (coldblue) USMC ret. and others have worked on several solutions, and Mr. Knight pushes us to find methods within the contract to improve the system, as well as working on R&D for potential improvements that could be fed into an A1 version if desired by the Army.
RadioActivity
02-06-09, 14:34
H20...
Alright man, here is how it is. We get it, you love the M14/M1A. Thats great and all but you are currently a fanboy who's HOBBY GUN is skewing your views and words akin to what one would find on a particular other site.... hint hint.
I know you got your pee-pee smacked for this before on another site.... and it seems your lining up for the same here. Why not calm down, read what people are saying, think hard about the meaning of their words, the purpose of their posts, and save yourself having one less playground to socialize in? I don't foresee this semantics driven argument and pissing match ending well...
M14's are cool guns, sure, if thats what your into. A lot of shit is issued to the military, particularly from the hip, quick and dirty, in times of need. It does not mean that particular item is validated simply because it is issued/re-issued. It does not mean there is not something better to fill the role of said item in existence.
Oh- there's the rumble strip....back into my lane now :p
Jay Cunningham
02-06-09, 14:37
H20...
Alright man, here is how it is. We get it, you love the M14/M1A. Thats great and all but you are currently a fanboy whos HOBBY GUN is skewing your views and words akin to what one would find on a particular other site.... hint hint.
I know you got your pee-pee smacked for this before on another site.... and it seems your lining up for the same here. Why not calm down and read what people say, think hard about the meaning of their words and purpose of their posts, and save yourself having one less playground to socialize in? I don't foresee this semantics driven argument and pissing match ending well...
M14's are cool guns, sure, if thats what your into. A lot of shit is issued to the military, particularly from the hip, quick and dirty, in times of need. It does not mean that particular item is validated simply because its being issued/re-issued. It does not mean there is something better to fill the role of said item out there.
Oh- there's the rumble strip....back into my lane now :p
Well said.
H20...
Alright man, here is how it is.
ClosetCase... You have a right to your opinion, no matter how incorrect it is.
I will put our M110 up against any M14.
That would be great.
We're still waiting for a credible source on the FN SCAR-H rumors you've posted here. I'd strongly suggest you pay more time and attention to providing that credible source then in engaging other member's opinions of you.
Alternately, you can retract your statements, and make it clear that you have no factual information regarding the SCAR-H.
QuickStrike
02-06-09, 15:58
I meant which brands.
I remain skeptical.
Then you're beyond convincing.
.....
This doesnt sound like ANY info on the arctic portion of the T48 Vs. T44 tests. Or any sort of testing whatsoever. :confused:
I never said the M14 is an uber supreme precision gun. To me it is a battle rifle with some pluses and minuses (like all of them), but not a complete POS like some think.
We're still waiting...
The problems I read about over the summer have been retracted or buried because
I can't find anything but talk of how AK reliable it will be when it becomes available.
This indicates that FN has addressed the problems and that they are moving forward.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 16:24
Then you're beyond convincing.
This doesnt sound like ANY info on the arctic portion of the T48 Vs. T44 tests. Or any sort of testing whatsoever. :confused:
I never said the M14 is an uber supreme precision gun. To me it is a battle rifle with some pluses and minuses (like all of them), but not a complete POS like some think.
I never said the M14 was a POS. Only that the opportunity cost it represents is far too high for a dead-end.
Do I believe that an original USGI receiver might have a specified life of 300K rounds? I'm sure it's possible.
Is a Springfield M1A receiver the same quality as the original USGI spec? I doubt it.
There is no MK14 EBR that weighs 23 pounds.
M249 Squad Automatic Weapon
Total Weight: 16.5 lbs. (7.5 kg)
http://www.fnmfg.com/products/m249fam/M249saw.htm
When you put together the optic, Sage stock, M-14 ect you end up in the same region.
The M-14 is nice, but it is a stop gap none the less. Rock Island is turning out a certain set number of M-14 EBR's for now. I was attempting to find it earlier, but the USMC had put out a sources sought for 7.62 DM rifles. Today I believe that Knight has the only mature and TESTed solution on the streets. I know Mr. Knight explained why they did not include a forward assist, but I wish it had been included. In the next 2-3 years we may begin to see the next generation of 7.62 rifles begin to hit the street in large enough numbers to draw meaningful conclusions. Of course by then we may have all switched to one of the new caliblers that are gaining ground say 6.8, 6.5 or the new Robinson round.
Until then my first choice remains 5.56mm.
M249 Squad Automatic Weapon...
The SAW is a big heavy stick without the approximately 7 pounds of ammo that goes with it...
The Rock Island built M14 EBRs are not known for their reliability or accuracy.
As you well now I am not a fan of the M-110 or the M-14. Each has it's qurcks. I'm no longer a shooter and was never that high speed, but I have a LOT of perspective on both systems.
1. You (deleted) keep slaming the M-14 EBR's at every chance. I have asked both of you nicely seveal times to provide me more detailed info on the problem since I have a professional inteest on several levels. I work with a orginazation that has seveal hundred EBR's on hand. They have been and are in use in both theathers. Other then being fat pigs and no one knowing how to maintain them I have not heard a complaint. MOA or better guns are the norm and this is with RACK GRADE BARRELS AND ACTIONS. That said they are still older then my 42 years. The EBR Program is a huge improvement over the crap we were using before I retired.
2. When I supported the OT for the XM-110 on of my comments is that they repesented a new CAPABLITY and as such would create many challanges when they were fielded. They were procured to be sniper rifles. Low round counts and semi conventional sniper employment was the window they were for. However, when you couple the traditional lack of understanding of sniper emplyment the wide spread use of DM's and a new 7.62mm Semi Auto rifle you would have problems. The M-110 was not envisioned as a main battle rifle firing thoushands of surpressed rounds between cleanings in high entensity fire fights. But some folks on the line think it is.
I believe you already have my AKO or you can respond through PM. WIth out the facts you and differant are claiming your arguments are wearing thin.
I'm going to do my best to say silent now while more educated people speak.
As you well now I am not a fan of the M-110 or the M-14. Each has it's qurcks. I'm no longer a shooter and was never that high speed, but I have a LOT of perspective on both systems.
1. You and Differant keep slaming the M-14 EBR's at every chance. I have asked both of you nicely seveal times to provide me more detailed info on the problem since I have a professional inteest on several levels. I work with a orginazation that has seveal hundred EBR's on hand. They have been and are in use in both theathers. Other then being fat pigs and no one knowing how to maintain them I have not heard a complaint. MOA or better guns are the norm and this is with RACK GRADE BARRELS AND ACTIONS. That said they are still older then my 42 years. The EBR Program is a huge improvement over the crap we were using before I retired.
2. When I supported the OT for the XM-110 on of my comments is that they repesented a new CAPABLITY and as such would create many challanges when they were fielded. They were procured to be sniper rifles. Low round counts and semi conventional sniper employment was the window they were for. However, when you couple the traditional lack of understanding of sniper emplyment the wide spread use of DM's and a new 7.62mm Semi Auto rifle you would have problems. The M-110 was not envisioned as a main battle rifle firing thoushands of surpressed rounds between cleanings in high entensity fire fights. But some folks on the line think it is.
I believe you already have my AKO or you can respond through PM. WIth out the facts you and differant are claiming your arguments are wearing thin.
I'm going to do my best to say silent now while more educated people speak.
Well said.
Before this gets out of hand I want to thank everyone for their replies/suggestions/comments. I'm sure the FAL, M110, SCAR-H, et. al. are very good rifles, each with unique merits. I should have mentioned in the original post that I will be using this for 3 Gun. For the record, I have a couple of friends that have used the Mk14 in combat and have nothing but good comments and stories. I do not know anyone personally that carried the M110, but my buddy said those guys have somewhat specific missions in more of a sniper or DMR role. He also said that M110s aren't exactly a CQB rifle, whereas with a Mk14 is better suited for it. Then again if it is a up-close and personal he would be using his Mk18.
Yes, I can believe that the M14 is just a stop gap, but it's been a 10+ year stop gap. With the upcoming release/issue of the SCAR the AR platform may be at a "stop gap" phase as well. I'm sure a spirited debate will continue in these areas.
Again, thanks for the insight and comments. One thing I'm sure of is that we all passionate about our arms.
Now I've read that the M110 was having problems in theater because it was being used so much. Much beyond the "50 rounds per day" that the manual for the M110 suggests (I KNOW I read that here, so don't ask for sources).
I understand there were malfunctions, that's typical. But was there parts breakage?
Yes, I can believe that the M14 is just a stop gap, but it's been a 10+ year stop gap. With the upcoming release/issue of the SCAR the AR platform may be at a "stop gap" phase as well.
Fair enough! :)
(I KNOW I read that here, so don't ask for sources).
Can I use this as my signature line? ;)
Shark,
If you decide to go with the M14 and have the means, I suggest something like my MK14 LIGHT.
The 18.0" barrel has a standard profile and the whole thing weighs 10 lbs. 15.8 Oz. ~ without the mag and sling.
BTW, the 25 round mag is not overly long or heavy :)
http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14_SEI_EBR-a.jpg
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 18:18
The problem is that no one suggested that the M110 was a valid choice for the OP to make.
The original choice was between the AR-10 and the M1A.
You can certainly shoot the AR-10 more than 50 rounds a day. Moreover it's about 1/3 the cost of a Mk14.
That's a lot of ammo and training for a platform that's living on borrowed time.
The problem is that no one suggested that the M110 was a valid choice for the OP to make.
And why would they? The OP did ask for something that was both reliable and durable... ;)
You can certainly shoot the AR-10 more than 50 rounds a day. Moreover it's about 1/3 the cost of a Mk14.
Yeap, and I'm still considering it. One of my SWAT buddies shoots a AR10 with 20 round mags(often with 2 coupled with a mag cinch) in 3 Gun and does pretty well with it. I've held it, but never shot it. Of course, he gets free ammo, so maybe I'll have a chance real soon.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 18:42
And why would they? The OP did ask for something that was both reliable and durable... ;)
You're entitled to your opinions, no matter how little you defend them, but you're silly if you think sophomoric witticisms impress anyone but you.
I didn't say that the M110 was either. Only that the military is putting resources into improving it, something they're not doing with the M14.
Any more straw men to knock down?
Littlelebowski
02-06-09, 19:05
The SAW is a big heavy stick without the approximately 7 pounds of ammo that goes with it...
The Rock Island built M14 EBRs are not known for their reliability or accuracy.
And you've carried the SAW when and where? Pray tell because otherwise folks might think you're going to say....post an opinion with no backing real life experience other than anecdotal hearsay you read somewhere. You know how people are.
Littlelebowski, a thread with M14 content is worthless without you - thank you for chiming in.
Littlelebowski
02-06-09, 19:10
So when did you carry the SAW, fanboy? USMC Infantry 95-04 is my experience.
I didn't say that the M110 was either. Only that the military is putting resources into improving it, something they're not doing with the M14.
And that's were you are wrong once again.
Resources are being put into improving the M14.
USMC Infantry 95-04 is my experience.
So you got out right before the M14 modernization program really got going in earnest... interesting.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 19:21
And that's were you are wrong once again.
Resources are being put into improving the M14.
By whom? What's your source?
Again, you keep saying I'm wrong, but you provide no information to the contrary except claims that you've not once substantiated.
Even still you've assiduously avoided the salient problem. The AR-10 is a fraction of the cost of a combat-reliable M14. I'm glad you've got unlimited resources to spend on your Mk14. However it represents a significant opportunity cost when you factor in how much training or ammo you could get for the difference in price.
So far you've made numerous claims on which you've been repeatedly discredited by people that know quite a bit more than you do.
Littlelebowski
02-06-09, 19:21
Stop evading my question.
What is your experience with the SAW?
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 19:22
So you got out right before the M14 modernization program really got going in earnest... interesting.
Damn you're evasive.
M14 modernization program? Whos program is this exactly?
Can I use this as my signature line?
Sure I don't mind.
For those in the know about ar10's, do they all share the same BC/bolt? Or are they all proprietary? Any other major parts standard or proprietary from company to company?
Stop evading my question.
What is your experience with the SAW?
Start a new thread...
This ain't about the SAW!
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 19:45
Start a new thread...
This ain't about the SAW!
You made the comparison to the SAW, now you're backing away from it (yet again)?
Seriously, talking to you is like herding cats.
Is there a statement you're willing to defend? If not why should anyone listen?
The AR-10 is a fraction of the cost of a combat-reliable M14.
The M14 was paid for about 50 years ago and the current military AR-10 has a high price tag that will amaze you.
Maybe KevinB can tell us exactly what our military pays for each M110...
Damn you're evasive.
M14 modernization program? Whos program is this exactly?
In the year 2000 some east coast SEALs began searching for a more compact M14 for arctic warfare.
For evaluation purposes the folks at CRANE NSWC and others custom built an assortment of M14 stocks
including one GI synthetic with the telescopic butt stock SAGE makes for the 870 shotgun attached.
After field evaluations the SEALs reported they liked the SAGE 870 mod the best
With a new replacement stock machined from a solid billet of aluminum...
The SAGE Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) chassis stock system was born.
The M14 enhancement program has grown out of the efforts of the east coast SEALs mentioned above.
Littlelebowski
02-06-09, 19:51
You're pathetic, H20Man. You brang on and on about a weapon's accuracy, a weapon you own yet you can't seem to post pics of your own groups with it and when asked to verify your own comment about the SAW, you evade the question.
You made the comparison to the SAW, now you're backing away from it (yet again)?
Seriously, talking to you is like herding cats.
Is there a statement you're willing to defend? If not why should anyone listen?
Truth be told... it was DMR that first mentioned the M-249.
I juggled cats, but I've never herded them...
You're pathetic, H20Man. You brang on and on about a weapon's accuracy, a weapon you own yet you can't seem to post pics of your own groups with it ...
The word is brag - not brang.
As for the M-249: see the post above this one.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 19:58
The M14 was paid for about 50 years ago and the current military AR-10 has a high price tag that will amaze you.
Maybe KevinB can tell us exactly what our military pays for each M110...
Once again you're evading the question. I'm not talking about the M110 or what the US paid 50 years ago.
I'm talking about what the OP is going to have to pay...today.
Nice try though.
In the year 2000 some east coast SEALs began searching for a more compact M14 for arctic warfare....
The M14 enhancement program has grown out of the efforts of the east coast SEALs mentioned above.
You didn't answer the question.
1. It's no longer the year 2000...in case you haven't noticed.
2. You're again making claims without some sort of documentation that establish the basic facts.
3. Who's "M14 enhancement program?" The government? How much is being spent in FY2009?
4. How many contractors did the government RFP for new parts for the inventory of M14s?
Littlelebowski
02-06-09, 20:02
So you've never handled a SAW.
You have no military experience, do you?
GJ & L, I'm going to step out of the way and let you two work this out to it's logical conclusion.
Gutshot John
02-06-09, 20:12
GJ & L, I'm going to step out of the way and let you two work this out to it's logical conclusion.
What conclusion is that? That you've no intention nor ability to defend any number of statements you made in this thread?
That conclusion is apparent.
edit
please think before you post.
Littlelebowski
02-06-09, 21:46
And why would they? The OP did ask for something that was both reliable and durable... ;)
You mean for photos hosted on your website or the streets of Fallujah? Because my brother alreayd proved what the SR25 can do in battle.
Seriously, the real problems with the M110 and SCAR H is that they're not SEI m14s, isn't it?
You mean for photos hosted on your website or the streets of Fallujah? Because my brother alreayd proved what the SR25 can do in battle.
Seriously, the real problems with the M110 and SCAR H is that they're not SEI m14s, isn't it?
He can't answer, he's gone.
Let's move on, and get back to helping the OP.
We are moding 50 year old M-14s into the M-14 EBR. The work is done at Rock Island. However the mods ar simple Rack Grade M-14's bolted into Sage Stocks with Leupold scopes. Those are called te M-14 EBR. Crane makes the MK-14 and the USMC is poking around o a few differant versions.
They are built out of 40-50 year old stock with new parts bolted on. I do find H2O's comments on the EBR's funny since GI M-14's and Sage Stocks seem to be the holy grail o M-14, yet he claims they are POS (with no supporting info) They work, they are accurate, and they are not produced by SEI.
Then they get to the units and still very few maintance persoel know how to work on them. Maintance is not part of the POI that cpomes with the rifles in most cases. Support has improved since my company used them i 2003-04 in OEF. We were buying parts and Mags on line from Spingfield because they Army couldn;t even support us with MAGs.
The M-110 is having some issues because not all units are taking the NET training and some bugs that are comm with any new weapon once you put it in soldiers hands. The main differance is this time, like Vietnam we are doing it in combat.
For the original OP's earlier question I would go with a AR based rifle, although you might well do just fine with a Springfield. If you have a highend gun of either make you will most likely do just fine.
As for the SAW comments I was only pointing out that both the SAW and the M-14EBR/MK-14 are big fat pigs to carry for days on end (as is my FAL:Dhere we go).
Littlelebowski
02-06-09, 22:17
Sorry about that, Templar. Good call, mods.
All those "tactical" stock modifications are an attempt to drag an obsolete platform into the modern era.
No matter how much you mod the M14, you still have an open top receiver that does not lend itself to mounting optics very well. You still have rock in magazines. You still have massive heavy reciprocating parts.
In 1990 I bought a new SAI M1-A basic. It is all USGI minus the receiver. I shoots sub MOA to 3 MOA with various milsurp. The gun has been 100% reliable in about 2500 rounds of informal plinking.
In 1997 In bought a 16" Armalite AR-10 new. I was a very accurate rifle sub MOA with Argentine surplus. I used Armalite 20 round mags when I tested the rifle. The rifle would constantly fail to extract using Hansen (PPU), Wincester(old camo paper box) and Argentine ball. This would happen at least once ever twenty rounds. I wasted about 800 rounds of surplus trying to break that rifle in. I called Armalite about my issues and their service rep stated those issues were common and they MAY be able to fix the rifle.
I than dumped that POS and never looked back.
Littlelebowski
02-07-09, 06:17
Personally, I'd prefer an AR10 because it's cheaper and far, far more accurate. In Southern California however; the OP's home, I'd prefer a non-neutered rifle. So I'd go with the Scout/Squad. Avoid the SOCOM.
You still have massive heavy reciprocating parts.
Woah now....I hear ar10 bolt are purposely made heavier in order to reliably get into battery/reliable cycling.
Woah now....I hear ar10 bolt are purposely made heavier in order to reliably get into battery/reliable cycling.
Compared to an op rod, bolt, complicated trigger group, and gas piston that do not operate in a linear fashion?
The M14 is more clunky.
Compared to an op rod, bolt, complicated trigger group, and gas piston that do not operate in a linear fashion?
oh damn, how could I have forgotten!
I hope that's not a sweeping generalization though. It is possible to have a long stroke operating system that's very light weight.
Smaller dimension bolt carriers and hollow op rods with a piston head attached to the end could provide light weight moving mass. If I'm not mistaken, aren't there already rifles like that?
oh damn, how could I have forgotten!
I hope that's not a sweeping generalization though. It is possible to have a long stroke operating system that's very light weight.
Stop trying to imply stuff I haven't said.
The M14 has more off axis moving mass than a AR10. That is fact.
Stop trying to imply stuff I haven't said.
The M14 has more off axis moving mass than a AR10. That is fact.
I knew you were talking about the operating mass shifting while firing but for some odd reason I kept thinking about the weight of the reciprocating mass that causes more mechanical recoil.
I was trying to point out that a system can be had that breaks the stereotype of that particaular system having more mechanical recoil.....but it turns out I misunderstood what you were saying, so it was pointless! Ha-ha, lol, sheesh....
Littlelebowski
02-08-09, 07:39
I do find H2O's comments on the EBR's funny since GI M-14's and Sage Stocks seem to be the holy grail o M-14, yet he claims they are POS (with no supporting info) They work, they are accurate, and they are not produced by SEI.
Don't worry about that. His modus operandi was bash anything not SEI and shrilly proclaim the combat superiority of his hobby gun. He's gone now and good riddance.
Good call on the 18."
I find my 22" barrel to generally be far too long for anything but target shooting. The gun is huge, it also weighs *a lot.*
Pros of an M1A :
1.) Classic Styling (Walnut stock anybody?)
2.) Short Stroke piston (increased reliability? though that is debateable)
3.) Will generally eat anything you feed it.
4.) CA legal to dress up without having to jump through loopholes.
5.) Receivers are durable--this will be one gun I want to pass on to my heirs.
6.) Bolt turns during extraction--aids in 'flinging' the brass out like the AK (from my understanding, the AR style weapons use a loaded spring on the boltface to eject shells? True?)
Cons:
1.) Weighs a lot. Heavy. Not sure how heavy a 18" AR10 is.
2.) May be hard to wring out accuracy--costs a lot to shoot Sub MOA (from my understanding at least).
3.) Have to rock the magazine in, instead of a straight stick n' slap like the AR
4.) Standard M1As don't have a bolt release.
5.) Have to buy a dedicated scope mount
6.) Safety position is just begging for a ND (Inside the trigger guard? Seriously?)
http://x51.xanga.com/6cff17f621532216147448/m169073286.jpg
There's a wealth of information at www.m14tfl.com. Good bunch of guys there. Very knowledgeable too.
Let me throw my 740 Fils out there. I bought my SOCOM II when I was under the oppression of the Republik of Kalifornia. My reasoning behind it was I did not want a neutered gay AR or some other Kalifornia compliant POS.
The SOCOM II was fairly handy, and I had quite a few 20 rounders for it. When I moved to the Free Republic of Arizona I dropped it into a Troy MCS stock added my Leupold and UBR stock and was good to go. Is it the perfect "wunder weapon"? No, but I wanted a good 7.62 rifle and in its current state it suits me fine. Had there been a good AR on the market that didn't have magazine and feed issues and was Kalifornia legal I would have snapped it up. If the SCAR-H ever humbles the American public with its presence and it's not obscenely expensive I may actually look at getting one.
I am in no way obsessed with it and realize that there are other options on the market.
I just had a side bar with Differant and deleted him from my earlier post. I think we are on the same page.
Alaskapopo
03-16-09, 01:08
None made the downselect, however 2 or three vendors did submit a M14 based platform for the intial solicitation. I am still picking way through the understand of RFI/RFP's - but unless the RFP would say M16 style system in definitive literature, then anyone building a FN, M14, etc could compete.
A M16FOW based platform was a no brainer for troop training, armorer training, and general muscle memory under stress.
The Mk17 (SCAR-H) is a SOCOM item, not big Army, so commentary on that is an issue between the services.
* I am sure anyone fielding a Mk17 from a budetary side would love Big Army to adopt it, as then their command would not have to pay. This is why some units will opt for the M110 rather than the Mk11 as it is Army furnished.
I heard that none of the SASS weapons passed the military's performance specifications and that the Knight was the best of the bunch but still did not pass. What was the problem/problems?
Pat
KAC passed.
There are several posters on this board and Lightfighter that where on the selection.
They can explain the selection much better than I.
Well I looked at buying an AR10 and considered buying the conversion kit for my LMT to have the 6.8 option and decided for now to go with an M1A. I bought a Springfield M1A Socom II in Urban Camo. I figure if I want to drop it into a Sage stock I can but will probably keep it in this configuration.
Here is the way I looked at it. I do not really agree with the idea of the M14 is dead. Are there more modern 308 rifles? Yes there are but it will still be a bit of time until the most modern 308 rifles are available. I have high hopes for the SCAR, Magpul Masada, HK 417 and other AR10 rifles. From what I have read the AR10's are a bit hit and miss. People either have great luck with them or seem to have issues. I have not had one so I have no personal experience with the AR10. I feel there is a good chance that if there are bugs with the AR10 they will get worked out. The SCAR is really not available except for in limited numbers at a premium price. The HK and Magpul are not available yet so that leaves us with the AR10 or M14 right now.
I went with the M1A for a few reasons. It is a proven design, lots of parts are available, Springfield offers a life time warranty, lots of mags available and other accessories. The M1A/M14 should also always maintain its value and demand since there is a "colt" following of the rifle (kind of like 1911 and AR's).
The reasons I decided to not go the 6.8 route right now is the cost and availability of mags, cost of ammo and availability, the caliber and barrels seems to still not be clear in an industry standard yet. I may want to get a 6.8 at some point but an advantage to the 308 is even more stopping power then the 6.8 and all of the above issues seem to be worked out in the M1A/M14.
The M14 does have some short comings as does any weapon. I feel for a gun I can walk in a store and buy the M14 is a good choice. With the potential of an AWB there is more parts, mags etc for the M14 then there will be of any of the "new" rifles. If and when there are other choices that make sense I will buy them. I have no need for just one rifle, more the better!
I also bought mine because I wanted an "assault" rifle in a large caliber then 5.56 for moments that I need more and it will be a fun gun to pig hunt etc with. For what I want to do with it and what most any of us will do with it it is a great choice.
Dave
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j88/dtchicago/IMG_0196.jpg
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j88/dtchicago/IMG_0192.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.