Why Bother Finding Accessories for the M1A?

Were I in one of my more trollish moods, I'd mention that the M14 was adopted largely due to a rigged acceptance test and downright lies from the Ordnance folks, and that the rest of the free world did the sensible thing in adopting the FN-FAL...but I'm not in one of those moods.

;)

For the record, I think that the FAL is the better rifle as things stand...but I'm presently selling my FAL and keeping my M1A. My personal tastes don't necessarily need to be based purely in logic. The M1/M14 family of rifles were the last of the classically-styled battle rifles fielded in any real numbers and while the design severely punishes mistakes and poor technique, the layout is not a serious drawback to someone with sufficient training and familiarity. That, and it's no big deal to leave your rifle in a "show" stock at the house and transfer it to a "pro" stock for use in less than a minute. (Those synthetics are ugly but that is the way to go.) Form follows function but if I have to be seen with the rifle, it ought to look good. Dave Rishar has an issue with ugly rifles. Can you dig it?

$25 for USGI M14 mags? Buy some, but not too many -- the M14 magazine (assuming USGI, and not that batch from CM for Desert Storm) is essentially unbreakable and will last several lifetimes under normal use with perfect reliability, even in a maritime environment. You will only need enough for one sitting, with perhaps one or two others just in case. When you get right down to it, you really only need one if you have clips and have practiced with them. Loading through the receiver is actually quite fast with a bit of practice.

("...for one sitting" is defined as no more than six, for me. Those damned things get heavy in a hurry when combined with all the other stuff. If I can't fix a problem with 120 rounds of 7.62mm, I can't fix it period.)

What disappoints me about the M14/M1A is that the M1 knowledge base was absolutely enormous at the time and while they fixed a few shortcomings, they did not fix all of them -- primarily with the sights and ergonomics. Had they corrected these, they would not have merely had a good rifle or even a great rifle -- they would have had an outstanding rifle, probably the best the world had ever seen at the time and one that would've remained the best for some time after. The sights were already being changed; it would've been a relatively simple matter to fix them...hell, Garand himself was still around. It's a shame.
 
Yes, I know the US trials were unfair and it can be 'substantiated' by some documentation. I've read it. The FN's possibilities were not allowed full consideration. FN got gypped. That's true.
As far as I can tell from reading the history of the US trials the last century, though, there has always been political mayhem. And in this case, the M14 was more than acceptable. Marines in Vietnam lucky enough to have them would not easily give them up.

I don't share your view of the M1A. The FNFAL is heavier. (as made then) As we've seen with .308 platforms, they get heavy. I'd rather carry the M1A. Mine weighs 8lbs and change. It is not as good as an FN in full auto, but I don't fire full auto. And it doesn't have the wonderful modular design. You might be able to take a CNC-made FN today and make it as accurate as a M-14 was 40 years ago, and might make it more accurate than a M1A is now, I don't know; but I do know the M14 had a deserved rep for accuracy and have not heard quite the same level of accolades for the FN in any theatre.

The FN is pretty neat. Like the AR series, I get the feeling I'm in a shooting platform, rather than holding a rifle. With the M1A, I'm holding a rifle. Having been raised in America, or anyone who has spent time with O3's and most bolts, will instinctively like the M1A.

Like you Dave, I understand the classic battle rifle feel to the M14, and like it. It was last of a era. The wood on mine is exceptional. Wood is good. It's hard to imagine a civvy like me ever being in a position of either great Earth turmoil or attacked by zombies on my property, and 'loosing' because I did not have a FN or HK.

The AR arrived and pushed all the 308 platforms aside anyway, and I'm glad the US got the contract to make M14's, even in a short a period as it was.

Kennedy's brain kids did not accept a .308 AR, so they sure as heck wouldn't have stuck with a .308 FN

I would very much like to know what small ergonomic improvements you would have liked to see on the M14. Knowing you, they would be good.

Anyway, I'm glad I kept my M1A Ultimately, I picked it over the AR's, HK's, FN's, and AK's. (I have AK's left around here because they were so inexpensive they refuse to leave the compound. What the hey- my guests will need to be armed come disaster)

btw, the M14 manual advises against removing the rifle from the stock unless it's neccesary. Each time you degrade accuracy.

munk

I wonder; is the M14 the SKS of the Allied world? Both obsolete even before introduction.
 
munk said:
btw, the M14 manual advises against removing the rifle from the stock unless it's neccesary. Each time you degrade accuracy.
Click to expand...

With a wooden stock? Perhaps. Definitely not with a synthetic.

What we have here is a classic issue of the training catching up with the technology. The M14 was conceived from the start as being stocked with plastic; unfortunately, at the time of its inception the state of the art hadn't reached that point yet. Note that the wooden stocks have a metal insert, yet the plastic ones don't, and also how the handguards were always synthetic.

The book was originally written in the era of wooden stocks (drawing heavily from the Garand knowledge base) and most saw no reason to change it. Some of it is not always accurate, but all of it works well enough.

Garand had ease of maintenance in mind when he designed his rifle, rather than utmost theoretical accuracy -- that's why we see some of the features that we do. The method of attaching the stock to the action was one of these. If Hatcher is to be believed the Army didn't like the idea and would have preferred the traditional screws and such, but Garand insisted on clamping everything together with the trigger guard. His idea was sound for a battle rifle. For a match rifle it wasn't. Clamping and unclamping on a wooden stock will eventually compress the wood enough to allow excessive play in the fit, creating yet more bedding issues over what already existed and hurting accuracy. This is not a concern with the USGI synthetic stock.

FAL vs. M14:

The FAL is heavier and this was cited during the trials, but this complaint had the ring of desperation to it. The FAL could indeed be made lighter and eventually was, and it was not that big of a deal anyway. With the complete accessory kit in the buttstock, the M14 was about the same weight. A pound or two extra certainly didn't hurt the handling in any case.

The M14 was a direct descendant from the M1 Garand, which was a completely new genre and was breaking new ground. It was not done correctly -- and how could it be? No one knew what "correct" was yet. No one had yet fielded a reliable semiautomatic battle rifle in a major caliber to date and none of the less important things, like ergonomics, had even really been considered yet. Garand provided the government with a semiautomatic that performed better than the Springfield and simplified training, and the whole issue of adopting a semiautomatic rifle had dragged on for far too long as it was. (This was probably what killed the Johnson, BTW...it was not remarkably better than the M1 and Springfield Armory had already tooled up to build the Garand, so why switch? Perfection was the enemy of good enough and an acceptable rifle today would be better than a perfect rifle tomorrow, so went the Army's reasoning...and they were correct.)

To the surprise of most, the thing worked fine. This was actually to the M14's detriment, as if the M1 had not worked properly more attention would have been paid to fixing it. Consistantly winning breeds complacence and a resistance to change. During WWII the Germans learned this lesson the hard way with their aircraft program; the Japanese learned it with their small arms. Early victories showed that things were fine, so why change them? And we see the results: the Germans were totally outclassed in the air from 1941 on, the Japanese small arms were a joke until the war was nearly over, and the M1 soldiered on with numerous defects that were not addressed. When the M14 was offered up as a replacement, one of the arguments on its behalf was that existing M1 tooling could be used to produce it. (A downright lie.) Thus, not much could be fixed, as that would warrant changing the tooling and if the tooling were to be changed, this argument would no longer hold water.

What would I change?

- The bolt release is too small. I mean, really too small. It needs to be larger and it needs to be farther forward.
- Rock 'n lock magazines are a bad idea. Even the Russians finally figured this out. Straight insertion is more intuitive and faster, while being just as secure.
- The front sight is ridiculously fragile; any good thump on the wings will shift windage and possibly destroy the screw. They also like to wander off when the barrel gets good and hot. Who ever heard of such a thing? The M16 got this one right.
- The rear sight is hard to read and no one likes to work with mils if they don't have to. (Excepting artillerymen, perhaps, and I bet that they don't like them.) The M16 got this right too, although it could be even better.
- The rear sight is also fragile. The aperture can extend above the wings and any moderate shock will change the zero at best and cause damage at worst. Merely extending the wings would have corrected this.
- The charging handle is on the wrong side. This can work but it would be even better on the left. A change is easy in theory but would've required extensive retooling, which is probably why it wasn't done.
- The flash suppressor is too tight. It should have been reamed out to NM specs from the start. Easy fix.
- I personally don't like training students on a weapon that requires the finger to enter the trigger guard in order to operate the safety. A better organization probably would not have had as many issues. In any event, a different location would have been better.
- A weapon should not require fairly extensive modifications in order to be used with thick gloves or mittens. A trigger bar along the bottom of the stock was okay for WWII but it didn't fly afterwards. I can think of several ways to fix this easily on the manufacturer's end.
- The handguard is too flimsy. It seldom needs to come off but when it does, your options are to remove it without risk by disassembling the gas system (changing the zero in the process) or popping it off and possibly cracking it. Building it sturdier wouldn't have hurt the overall weight in any realistic fashion.
- The FA rate of fire is too high. It's not difficult to reduce the rate of fire but this isn't an important issue. It's merely mentioned for completeness. ~
750 RPM in a 7.62mm 8 lb. weapon is way the hell too fast.
- While Garand's receiver locking mechanism seems to have worked after all, it's obviously not the ideal way to do business. Imagine what this thing could have accomplished with a rotating bolt...
- It could have been made easier to disassemble. It's not hard by any means for someone familiar with it, but compare it to some (most) other semiautomatic military firearms. I do understand the government's reasoning completely in this area though and I'm merely speaking of ideals.
- Sling swivels are in the wrong places. Actually the rear one is fine, but the front one ought to be moved to the left side of the weapon to simplify carry. For those that would complain that such a sling wouldn't work as well for slung-in markmanship, I'd say that it would work nearly as well and that makes up about 1% of what the rifle will actually be doing, with being carried on the shoulder taking up a good 90% of the rest of the time. To our discredit, pretty much everyone else figured this out, even with their bolt guns.

To be fair, some of the features are outstanding:

- Amazingly strong receiver and bolt.
- Exceptionally useful combi-tool that does everything from making magazine loading easier to allowing one to strip down the bolt. (And when's the last time that you had to do that, anyway?) One of the better buttstock kits ever made, if not one of the best.
- Excellent sighting arrangement: great sight radius, great aperture, proper size for the front blade.
- Lighter than the competition.
- Good modularity in some areas.
- "Hangs" just fine with a bayonet on the end. Feels like it would work well in bayonet combat.
- Excellent magazines. The only complaints are the weight and cost to civilians.
- Flexibility. Can be operated with minimal loss of efficiency with only one magazine if the ammunition is packed correctly. (Try that with the FAL.)
- Exceptional gas system. Non-adjustable, because it doesn't need adjusting. Again, try that with the FAL. Also self-cleaning. In my experience, you might as well weld the nut on and forget about it.
- Chrome lined bore. Don't fight it...it's the way to go for military arms.

munk said:
I wonder; is the M14 the SKS of the Allied world? Both obsolete even before introduction.
Click to expand...

That's a good analogy. A better one may be that, like the Russians, we didn't know just exactly what we wanted until we realized that we didn't have it.

I apologize for the long post but hey, since you asked...
 
That was a fine post, and an old gunnie like me enjoyed it. I still say you should write for gun magazines. When you are in your element, testing a khuk or a gun in the field, you bring not only knowledge and competence, but you are interesting and fun in a field of redundancy.

Ahem, to get back on track, the charge handle on the other side is a great idea. That would be a right handed person's preference, wouldn't it, since you could still hold the rifle on target area while pulling the bolt back with your left hand? Lefties may not like it. Like the Colt single action; put the loading gate on the right side. That fine company in Texas did exactly that, and charges babie's college fund to get one. (I almost want to say, Grover's Improved, but I still forget the name. You and 45/70 will recall)


A rate of fire of 450 would be good. Wonder why the military never called you to ask this stuff? Just like they never called me about an intermediate cartridge between the .223 and .308
You think the .308 should be the squad cartridge, instead of the .223? (If I've remarked upon this correctly it means the heavier support rifle of a squad being a larger calibre, or at least more oomph, then what the soldiers carry)

I think you are spot-on about the wood stock- that's why my manual says don't pull out unless neccesary. You think I should get a fibreglass stock? I just never bothered, and I've seen them on sale for 14 dollars, though that day is probably gone.

I love my M1A about as much as I can love a 'thing'. I do think I've kept the right rifle, while unfortunately letting the others go.

munk
 
The military developed the M14 during the late '40's and early '50's. It would be nearly 30 years before I was even born. I'd like to think that this is why they didn't listen to me and not because of my opinions but the jury is still out on that. They still refuse to listen to me.

If I had to choose between the 5.56mm and the 7.62mm as the basic frontline cartridge, I'd choose the 5.56mm. There are better options available today (and they were basically available decades ago) but no one seems interested. I think that the 7.62mm is a good (although not the best) choice for a GPMG, which is primarily how we use it today. We're on the right track. What I don't understand is how adopting a new platform in the same caliber is going to correct complaints that are largely about the caliber, but what do I know?

Today's designs seem to address the issue of lefties and righties adequately. Yesterday's designs don't, but if you have to make a choice there are many more righties than lefties and it makes sense to cater to them. In any event I'm a righty so that's what's important to me. Can a righty use it properly?

I still have the old synthetic stock that came with my M1A. It seems to be a gummint model sprayed with a black textured finish and with the buttplate replaced by a rubber recoil pad, but it does have the sling swivels intact. PM me if you want it. No cost, except maybe shipping.
 
Yes, that's really nice of you, Dave.

As for different platform, same round; isn't the new short .270 here to stay? It's not?
The US should've had the gas piston model of the AR for desert situations. Then most parts would still swap, but units could choose. My opinion is that a new rifle, or cartridge or both, should only be produced if they have a honest advantage over the competition. There has to be a practical, measurable advance in use before we shell out the big bucks. But we know how human it is to want a new tool. I see FN has a bullpup .223 they hope will win a contract.

munk
 
If I recall, they made the johnson in an LMG configuration.

Wouldn't be too hard to convert to 7.62x51.

Would make a nice squad weapon, even today.

I liked the M249. Got one right before my ETS.

Still think a squad, or at least a platoon, should have one weapon of .30 cal.

Someday, I would love to take a Ruger #1 to a military style match. I think you could make the rapid fire if you had a loading block set up similar to the one used on the trapdoor.

I'll see your one mandatory reload, and raise you to nine!!

Time to update those rules!

Tom
 
I think that may be the form the Johnson was sold as, LMG, but it was offered as a regular rifle too.


btw; I don't know if the Johnson really was better than the Garand. It h ad it's flaw and virtues too. If it was about the same value as a Garand, it would lose the bid, because they'd been working on the Garand a long time.

munk
 
nice gun :) i want one... someday? mmm...

then again, i want a couple bows, a loom, a spinning wheel...

try out imageshack.us and photobucket... they do all the work, and produce the URL and thumbnails. size limits? pshaw. :) i'm lazy that way.

with the smugmug account i have, i can drag and drop a directory of photos in, and walk away, it does everything - practically no limits on storage - effectively unlimited sharing for my needs. woo. plus they have a pyramid scheme for pricing :)

bladite
 
Well, let me cover accuracy first. Now, I didn't shoot this group, and I won't claim that this is anything like a standard FAL/LAR/STG, but I do own the rifle that fired this* .3" 100 yard group.

attachment.php


Remember that the Garand should have been made in .276.

Tom, platoons have a M240B GPMG. This is the 7.62 that replaced the M60.







*yes, the picture is a joke. Drugs and guns do NOT mix well, so lay off the cigarettes, coffee, and sugar before and while shooting.
 
Good job with the pics Munk. Sorry I wasn't able to help more...
 
huh? What!!?? You helped me buckets, man! Thank you for being a friend, Andy.

Nice group, Spectre.

When I took my M1A to the range, and my eyes were better 15 years ago, I was outshooting with open sights a buddy using a tricked up scoped Winchester.
No knock on Winchester- my M1A has a Winchester barrel in it.

munk
 
Thanks Spectre,

shows that I haven't been reading much military literature in the last little while!

:o

Tom
 
I'm late getting back to this one.

Merely adding a piston does nothing besides (arguably) keeping the receiver a bit cleaner and increasing the parts count, and probably influences the recoil impulse. (There're probably advantages to suppression as well but that's not topical to the discussion.) There have been rifles built that are operated by a piston and are not considered reliable, and there are rifles (and MG's, including Browning's designs) that have no piston at all and are completely reliable.

When most people think pistons, they're actually thinking of Kalashnikovs and M1/M14's. This is an unfair comparison. Yes, both are operated by pistons, but both also feature relatively large reciprocating masses. This is no secret. Look at nearly any so-called reliable weapon designed in the last hundred years and consider how much the back-and-forth assembly weighs. That's one of the tricks for reliability, and it does have its drawbacks. Garand probably understood this but may have had different reasons for doing things the way that he did. (He was an experienced engineer prior to working with weapons, remember.) Kalashnikov more than likely understood this and may have even "borrowed" it, as he "borrowed" many other features of his carbine from others.

Thus, I disagree while understanding what you're saying. A less-refined, possibly heavier and more complicated, possibly less accurate but definitely more reliable upper for hard use and the old standby for everything else...it sounds good. However, the old standby is pretty good as-is. You'll find most of the complaints coming from people who used it during its first few years of llife, or haven't ever used it at all. (Or, didn't RTFM.) I'm continually impressed by just how incredibly clever this rifle is -- and that's coming from a former armorer and instructor. The maintenance is simple and easy, almost everyone can shoot it well with little instruction, and repairs are normally a joy. It's a mature system and the bugs have been largely worked out.

I am most specifically not disagreeing with the gummint's idea to replace it. We've been using it for over four decades and it performed well more often than not. It had a good run. We can do better today, though, and we ought to. Caliber changes are never comfortable to any military but if we're going to do it, we might as well do it while we're changing out rifles. It probably wouldn't hurt to change the pistol caliber as well. (Although I'm not a .40 S&W user, I still feel that it would be an extremely good choice for NATO.)

MG's are another matter. While the M60 has its deficiencies, I saw nothing glaringly wrong with it that wasn't corrected by the E2. Granted, the E2 introduced a few new problems that were probably even worse, but the capability was obviously there to fix it for good.

If any one thing needs fixing with the M16/AR-15, it's the magazine. Stoner had his reasons for going with thin aluminum and they're good, but he was envisioning them as being disposable and we obviously didn't run with that idea. If they're to be reusable they need to be sturdier. Aluminum was the best that could be done back then; today, we have other options that are better. I'm convinced that this is the weakest point in the system's design currently.

Put another way, I can drop a USGI magazine on the ground and it may not work afterwards, even though it looks fine; I can throw a Glock magazine against a brick wall and it will function perfectly afterwards. They're both light and they're both corrosion resistant. Why are we still stuck with aluminum?

End of rant. It was a long night.
 
havent been around the forum here for a while, figured this is a good one to jump back in on.....
I guess there's no use flogging a dead horse, but just for the sake of mentioning it, the late Jeff Cooper was of the opinion that the Garand was the best soldier's service rifle anyone's come up with. Not really an opinion I agree with (the whole top load stripper clip business doesnt seem too convenient to me) but he definitely put more into defensive firearms use than me. From what I can tell from reading his online commentaries he was a big fan of a 7.62 or .30-06 (as far as a service rifle) and really liked the rear aperture sight, which he thought was as close as a production gun got to the 'ghost sight' he preferred. Then again, times change and unless you're willing to change (for the better!!) then youre kinda stuck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top