M14 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm currently in Iraq dreaming of building my next weapon. (Begin Rant) I've always loved the M-14/M1A and wish that the military had not caved into the demands of weak soldiers during vietnam complaining about rifle weight and kick from the M-14. (end Rant) Anyhow I've been contracted by the Army as an Armorer. I've worked on several M-14's here in Iraq and the soldiers love them. :D I'm wanting to build myself one when I get back to the world however from the limited research I've been able to do on the internet I've learned that some receivers are not compatable with GI bolts. How true is this? I'm interested in getting the new LBR arms receiver that has scope mounts built into the receiver eleminating the headache associated with mounting a scope to my pet project. Do any of you have a LBR arms receiver? As I've stated the only M-14/M1A receivers I've ever worked with have been Navy, Marine, Coast Guard, and now Army owned. So I'm pretty ignorant as to the reproduction receivers. What are the chances of getting a pre 96' receiver that isn't a reweld? Any suggestions or help with this would be greatly appreciated.

here's LBR's website if your interested.
http://www.lrbarms.com/pages/1/index.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
chuck,
didn't mean to offend anyone now if you take offense to that then I dunno what to tell you...however the draft did bring it's fair share of "weak" soldiers I'm sure....and it is a fact that soldiers complained about how cumbersome the weapon was. What is not known is how much DA took those complaints to heart in regards to the weapon change. It certanly wasn't due to the 5.56mm round as the M-14 is still in use today and the M60 and M240 both use the 7.62mm rounds. Now as far as my experiences here in Iraq...the M16 is garbage.....if given the opportunity nearly all the REMF and "legs" would trade in their M-16's some units have dropped them all together in favor of the M-14. Also As far as me being a REMF I have never claimed to being in the Army, or a "leg" I was a GM and still work in that capacity. (in a civilian non-combatant target on my head, MOFO"S wanting to cut my head off)

(Begin Rant) I've always loved the M-14/M1A and wish that the military had not caved into the demands of weak soldiers during vietnam complaining about rifle weight and kick from the M-14. (end Rant)
I NEVER said all soldiers were weak, nor did I say weak infantryman

next time you rant on me get the facts strait and have your cup of joe in the morning before you log on :lol:
 

·
Rest in Peace
Joined
·
17,536 Posts
No flamming each other. End of story.

The M14 bare was 8.7lbs while the M1 Garand was 9.1lbs. Which shows it was alittle lighter then what our grandfathers & fathers carried in WWII & Korea.

The M16 was an all service rifle determined by some Washington college boys that had never been in the service. It was to save money by all the branches of the service carrying the same weapon.

HuntingHawk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
I read the initial message just the way I reacted to it. Sorry 'bout that, but your rant about "weak soldiers during Vietnam" struck a raw nerve.

The M16 was adopted for several reasons among which were several 1950s studies demonstrating that a small caliber, high velocity rifle bullet (and its rifle) was several times more effective than the standard 30 calibers of WW1, WW2, and Korea. More effective because high velocity eliminates the need to estimate range at battlesight ranges and because the entire system was lighter. It wasn't adopted because of weak soldiers, it was adopted because for the same weight a soldier could carry that much more ammunition and consequently kill that many more enemy soldiers. Same weight.

Fact is my soldiers carried 60 and 70 pound rucksacks daily in jungle mountains to include their rifles and 440 rounds of 5.56mm ammunition plus a can of 200 rounds for the squad's M60 MG. No weak soldiers here, nor was there any ground swell of craving for the M14.

We're all here because we love the M14 for various reasons. Mine are nostalgia as it was the first rifle issued to me in the Army. I have two semi-only M14 Rifles.

You can criticize me personally or my choice of shoulder fired weapons (the M16 is a superior general purpose infantry rifle), but I react like a mother bear if I think you're degrading my soldiers. :D

-- Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I react like a mother bear if I think you're degrading my soldiers.
I don't blame you there Chuck. Maybe my choice of words wasn't PC. I think the M-14/M16 debate can go on forever. Some soldiers love the M-14 and some love the M-16. I'll tell you alot of guys here love the M-14....and BTW nearly all Service M-14's I've seen are semi auto only. They are not exactly easy to fire on auto without standing on the sling. Unless ofcourse you are in the prone position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
I dearly love the M14, but time and technology has moved on. In this case it was 40 years ago! Because of terminal ballistics 5.56mm is more effective round-per-round than 7.62mm at infantry combat ranges which still rarely exceed 100 meters.

Long range shooting? That's what your squad DM (M14) or 7.62mm machineguns are for.

440 rounds of M80 Ball in M14 magazines will weigh over 35 pounds. Add a 10 pound rifle and you're at 45 pounds without any water, grenades, or body armor. 440 rounds of M855 Ball (in 20 round magazines to make it all equal) weighs less than 16 pounds and with an 8 pound rifle you're still under 25 pounds. For the same 35 pounds of M80 Ball + 10 pound M14 Rifle a soldier can carry over 1,000 rounds of 5.56mm M855 Ball and the M16A2. That's way too much weight on the soldier with the other equipment required but you get the idea.

Soldiers and Marines got dewy-eyed when the M1 replaced the M1903. USMC refused to accept it and went onto Guadalcanal with the '03. They came off with lots of policed up M1 rifles from the Army. Lots of guys who never humped the boonies are still pining for the M14 and it still has utility in specialized roles.

-- Chuck
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
145 Posts
having "lugged" all three in the boonies....(I hunt with the M1 and M14) I would lean back on the M14 any day of the week. If I ever go to Iraq (it's a better chance now that I have transferred to a heavy engineer guard unit) I would beg, borrow or steal to get ahold of the M14. Even in our Minnesota sand, you take the M16 to the woods and you can just hear the sand grinding away at that thing just from driving down the road. Now send me to the sand box with a talcum powder sand and aluminum receiver......I'll pass.

The M16 was a political decision. Read enough of the papers behind it and you will quit once you figure it out. If you can't, then the obvious is not striking you.. The M9 was the same way. It was politics. The tests were run in a way to show these were the best. The desire to have a "weapon" that would allow the soldier to have a light battle load and kill the same amount is a falicy. If you carry 210 round and need 2 shots to kill someone that is only at best 105 combatants. If you carry 160 rounds with an M14 and only need 1 round, you are 55 combatants ahead of the came. Even if you have 50% hit rate, you are still ahead on the dead column with the M14.

Iraq is proving it hands down, the M14 is the better battle weapon. It isn't THE all-pupose weapon, but if I wanted something for close range room clearing purposes, my choice would lend a short barrelled, reduced recoil buckshot load and slugs on an 870 frame. Why? Because it works and you can drop it on the mud and it will still work.

The M14 is still the best game in town for highly reliable, functional high power semi-auto....Give up on the AR-10 as well. It is still a stoner design and a M16 on steroids. Yeah, I know, the AR-10 came out 10 years before the M16, but that is not widely known. (We sell an AR-10 and Ar-15 at work and most think the 10 is a new design.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,092 Posts
I am a fiercely loyal fan of the M-14. I carried one in the U.S. Navy, but that was one or two days at a time. If I had to hump the load a U.S. Army infantryman or U.S. Marine had to carry for weeks at a time, I would look at a way to lighten my total load. The difference in the weight of a rifle, ammunition and ancilliary equipment could be the difference of just a few seconds to move to cover. Any length of time in the open should be minimized; ask anyone who has practical experience.

That being said, if I were looking for a good all round assault rifle that could be used for clearing buildings and still be effective out to 250 meters, I would choose the M4 carbine being carried by many of our troops. The Remington 870 shotgun is an outstanding weapon for clearing buildings, but in the open it would not be effective at fighting an unfriendly armed with an AK-47 and keeping at least 100 yards away. Conversely, the M-14 is an outstanding battle rifle, but a little cumbersome for clearing buildings.

I believe the military is on the right track deploying the M-14 to Designated Marksmen and people who do not have to carry all of their belongings on their back for days at a time. As far as sand and other foreign materials being a problem, judicious cleaning of the weapon is a must. Maybe looser tolerances would help the issue. The Israelis have been carrying alot of M-16's and sand is definitely a problem for them. If reliability was an issue, I believe they would be issuing a different rifle.

God Bless our troops, for they go into harm's way to protect our freedom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,092 Posts
Tommo said:
How about an M14 Bush rifle for all around use? Still plenty of punch, but not as cumbersome for indoor use.
An M-14 Bush rifle would be better for clearing buildings than a full size one. One with the new SAGE stock would be even better. With an 18" barrel, you would still have a good 500 yard rifle.

Some of the special operations personnel are using something similiar to the Bush Rifle. A few deployed among the regular infantry units may not be a bad idea. But then you get into logistical problems by adding another requirement for non-belted .308 ammunition for the Bush rifle. A run of the mill infantryman or Marine needs all of the ammunition he can carry, because it may have to last him a week if the cannot get an UNREP flight into an area due to weather or other conditions. Smaller caliber=more rounds per pound.

If I were jumping into an area full of unfriendlies, I would want the same caliber as they were carrying. That way I could collect ammuniton from enemy captives or KIA's. Any designated marksman should have a rifle with a round having superior ballistics to the enemies cartridge. An accurized M-14 would do the trick. I am going to start a big fray by saying this, but I believe the U.S. Army should be issuing part of the troops M-4's that can shoot 7.62x39mm ammunition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,092 Posts
wackyiniraqi said:
I react like a mother bear if I think you're degrading my soldiers.
I don't blame you there Chuck. Maybe my choice of words wasn't PC. I think the M-14/M16 debate can go on forever. Some soldiers love the M-14 and some love the M-16. I'll tell you alot of guys here love the M-14....and BTW nearly all Service M-14's I've seen are semi auto only. They are not exactly easy to fire on auto without standing on the sling. Unless ofcourse you are in the prone position.
It was my understanding that in about 1985 the Department of the Navy decided to eliminate the M-14's with selector's. I believe that any new government contract M-14 was suppose to be semi-automatic only. Any armorers out there know for sure? I do know that many police agencies in the midwest have received M-14 rifles with selector's. I have seen a few that looked brand spanking new and many others that were in excellent shape.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
lbr

Can anyone tell of there experince with the L.B.R. recievers. I think that was the question. I am also considering one and would love to here some input. 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
valkin and wackyiniraqi,

Yes, I have a LRB M14 along with a SA M1A. The LRB is the standard receiver without the new built-in scope mount.

Having only received my LRB this past November, with hunting season in, I've only fired about 250 rounds down range with it. The rifle has been 100% reliable and accurrate. The receiver is equiped with a commerical chrome lined barrel. Only problem I've had was with a used trigger group that would not work well in the LRB. Same trigger group would work in the SA M1A. Two other trigger groups worked fine in the LRB (Go figure).

I'm well pleased with my LRB, as I am with my SA M1A. Lot's of people talk about the virtures of forged over cast receivers and receivers being in spec and out. But I'll leave that to the ones that have more experience and knowledge. Do a search on this forum for LRB and you'll find a lot more info.

Merry Christmas,

Joe A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Gossip on this site is that the LRB is exactly what you want!

I hate to interrupt an interesting hijack, but maybe sometime we can buy you guys a beer and pick it back up.

Word is the LRB is the best receiver on the market and is the closest anyone will ever get to the real GI. Seems to be the agreement of the two most respected armors on this site at least. Warbird also recently posted a review by Gus Fisher which might be helpful to you.. Do a search under the firing line section and you'll find a great thread that will answer many of the particulars you have. If you're looking to save some money then most contributors here seem to recommend the Armscorp if you cannot afford tthe LRB, but I understand that it takes more work and skill to do a build on the Armscorp. If you can spare the money though go for the LRB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,089 Posts
Wackyiniraqi,

Ted Brown of the Shooters Den in Jacksonville, OR has assembled my LRB M14SA receiver to an all USGI parts kit. He says it holds a 2" group at 100 yards. The finish matched the USGI parts perfectly. My rifle will be on display at the Shot Show in Las Vegas this month at the LRB booth. Both Ted and Lou (LRB) are real gentlemen to talk to on the telephone.

As the proud papa of my first M14 type rifle, I vote for the LRB.

BTW we appreciate what you are doing for us in Iraq. Please keep your head down and we will keep you in our prayers!

M14vrp 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Joe , what make of trigger group ended up working well for you?

Yes, I have a LRB M14 along with a SA M1A. The LRB is the standard receiver without the new built-in scope mount.


Having only received my LRB this past November, with hunting season in, I've only fired about 250 rounds down range with it. The rifle has been 100% reliable and accurrate. The receiver is equiped with a commerical chrome lined barrel. Only problem I've had was with a used trigger group that would not work well in the LRB. Same trigger group would work in the SA M1A. Two other trigger groups worked fine in the LRB (Go figure).

I'm well pleased with my LRB, as I am with my SA M1A. Lot's of people talk about the virtures of forged over cast receivers and receivers being in spec and out. But I'll leave that to the ones that have more experience and knowledge. Do a search on this forum for LRB and you'll find a lot more info.

Merry Christmas,

Joe A.[/quote]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
m14reajoh,

The original trigger qroup was a used HR. I tried the TRW trigger group out of my SA M1A and it worked great. I replaced the used HR t.g. with a like new HR trigger group. It works a lot better than the old one.

The problem with the old one was when removing the magazine, the bolt would go forward. The bolt catch would barely hold it. With new HR trigger group the only problem is occasionally the bolt will not stay open after last shot. I may end up sending the rifle to Warbird and let him replace the bolt catch and do his modification to make removing the bolt catch pin easier without breaking anything.

Like I said, the original problem is gone. Only every now and then the bolt fails to stay open after the last shot. Bolt always stays open now when I remove the magazine.

Joe A.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top