M14 Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 163 Posts

· Banned
Joined
·
1,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm an M1A guy. It was my first rifle purchase ever. (I'm 33 years old fellas)

One of my friends just purchased a $2300.00 AR-10 and I fired it.

I'm still an M1A guy.....I was not impressed. At least by comparison.

I would like input from those of you who have experience with either platform in combat environment..............Range data I already have.

Accuracy difference?

Reliability difference?

Ability to function wet,sandy,muddy, dirty?

Why is the AR-10 not more popular?

I'm not thinking about converting......I'm just curious.....

Thanks...

D
USNA
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,643 Posts
I have both a SA M1A, a DPMS LR-308 classic and an AR-10. I would feel fine taking either one of those three into combat and have tested them in crap conditions. All of them worked fine.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
The AR-10 can be a more accurate system out of the box. The reason for such is because of the receiver, barrel and bolt design. The upper receiver is simply a housing for the bolt and a mounting point for the barrel. The bolt carrier group essentially floats in the upper receiver until locked into the barrel extension when firing. The use of heavy or medium contour 410 and 416 SS floated barrels also help greatly in repetitive accuracy. Finally, the lack of a piston system can also aid with accuracy but the downside is receiver fouling.

The AR-10 is also easier to scope from the get go and can be a more modular platform without having to spend large sums of money. The Army and Airforce currently use the KAC M110 - basically a derivative of the SR-25 which was patterned after the AR-10. So far, I haven't heard of any major issues with the platform from those serving in current conflict theaters.

With that said, accuracy can be achieved with the M14 platform but requires more 'fiddling' to do so. FWIW, my Scout out of the box shot about 3-4" groups at a 100 yards with surplus ammo. My friend's basic Armalite AR-10 could print 2" groups with the same surplus and MOA to sub MOA with match loads. I believe he paid around $1300 for his rifle. I recently purchased a Sage EBR stock to see if I could improve my M1A's accuracy to something equivalent but required an additional $700+ to get there. Total investment in my Scout is about $2100. You could get away with better accuracy in an AR-10 for significantly less.

I'm going to purchase the Armalite AR-10EBF SASS within the next few months to play with. It'll cost less to go that route than to build my own or buying an SR-25. Both are great platforms; it all depends on what you want to do with it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
641 Posts
It would be interesting how a military armorer would rate the maintenance requirements between the two rifles.

Remember that many folks simply regard the M14 as an ancient design, automatically relegated to the historical heap. They simply ignore the EBR upgrade. I find it interesting however, that hunting rifles maintain the old wood and steel look. Why don't they make hunting rifles that look like AR's?

By the nature of this forum, many of us are biased in our affection for the rifle we had in boot camp, used in color guard, saluted with at military funerals. A couple of years ago we had a large memorial service for four slain police officers. I watched the state patrol honor guard with their m14's in an outstanding and emotional display. The rifle evokes honor and tradition when we need it. Maybe someday folks will feel the same way about the AR?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,010 Posts
I think that the AR platform guns are laid out in such a way that they can be operated more quickly than the M14.M1A's.I think the controls are better located, I'ts easier to make rapid mag changes, as mentioned above, they're easier to mount optics and other accessories to, there seems to be more components available to modify them and improve performance. The pinned upper/lower design allows you to have multiple uppers of different barrel lengths and even calibers, that you can switch in less than a minute. All that being said, and after building a bunch of them, I'm here building my first M1A. I also notice that in competition they seem to be faster than the guys shooting the M1A's. Of course competition isn't combat so maybe the M14's would win out as far as durability goes, not sure on that. BUT the M1A's are STEEL and real guns are supposed to be made of steel.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,104 Posts
First off let me say that I love my M14 style rifles. I've chosen them over H&K's, FALs and Valmets. That being said it is a dated platform that doesn't offer the modularity and inherent accuracy of the 'new' AR style of 7.62 rifles. The AR style rifles also have the added benefit of not having the 'sniper rifle' silohette that the bad guys in the sand box are looking for. To make the M14 into a viable sniper rifle the U.S. Military feels that upgrades like the Sage EBR need to be added to enhance the platform to make it a DMR weapo n.

For me it works because worst case I might have to knock some civilian troll out of his tree or shoot through a barricade to get him. As a sniper rifle of choice in a warfare scenario I would probably have to look at one of the AR10 style of rifle.

Am I buying one to replace my M14's? NO!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
What everyone else has already said pretty much sums it up.

While the M14 series of rifles are awesome in their own right, even with the EBR chassis it's hard to beat the ergonomics of the AR series of rifles. Plus, by nature of it's design, it's a fairly accurate battle rifle right out of the box.

Will I sell my M14 to fund an AR 308? Hell no! But I am eying the LMT MWS to play around with.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,915 Posts
First off let me say that I love my M14 style rifles. I've chosen them over H&K's, FALs and Valmets. That being said it is a dated platform that doesn't offer the modularity and inherent accuracy of the 'new' AR style of 7.62 rifles. The AR style rifles also have the added benefit of not having the 'sniper rifle' silohette that the bad guys in the sand box are looking for. To make the M14 into a viable sniper rifle the U.S. Military feels that upgrades like the Sage EBR need to be added to enhance the platform to make it a DMR weapo n.

For me it works because worst case I might have to knock some civilian troll out of his tree or shoot through a barricade to get him. As a sniper rifle of choice in a warfare scenario I would probably have to look at one of the AR10 style of rifle.

Am I buying one to replace my M14's? NO!
Dated platform? Is the M14 newer or older than the AR platform?
Here is some info on the AR platform:
ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt in 1959. After a tour by Colt of the Far East, the first sale of AR-15s were made to Malaysia on 30 September 1959 with Colt's manufacture of their first 300 AR-15s in December 1959.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
Compare this to the dates surrounding the M14:
Springfield Armory began tooling a new production line in 1958 and delivered the first service rifles to the U.S. Army in July 1959. However, long production delays resulted in the 101st Airborne Division being the only unit in the Army fully equipped with the M14 by the end of 1961.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle
The AR platform was and is a terrible main battle rifle platform. The cartridge is designed from a varmit round for animals weighing less than 25lbs.
The AR platform is not reliable. If the failure rate of the AR platform happened to the Garand during WWII it would not be known as the "Greatest battle implement ever devised"
If the M14 platform is so "outdated" why is it even in the TOE of our current Military, I mean heck where is the trapdoor, or krag.
The M14 is the greatest main battle rifle ever designed.
The age of the AR platform is from the late 1950's, same as the M14 platform.
Weigh your AR 308 platform and tell me it is lighter than an M14, try and service your weapon after a serious jamb in the AR platform, and compare to the take down of a M14, hell look at the condoms for the muzzle, cleaning requirements, zip lock baggies for the AR platform, special lube, powder requirements, difficulty in cleaning the gas system, and God forbid a bolt carrier stuck in the buffer tube. (can you tell I don't like the AR platform)
You claim it is easier to add components to the AR platform, why, the M14 has the best sight system, bullet delivery system ever devised, does it really need extra components. The consideration, and thought put into the M14 design proves the system, it is timeless.
Read this:
http://pattonhq.com/garand.html
2/3rd of the way down is an opinion held by many.
"The legend of the Garand was--and is--based upon the unassailable fact that the weapon, in spite of its theoretical weaknesses, WORKS--in the mud, in the rain, in the snow, and in the dust. History has irrevocably proven this beyond any possible doubt and it is important evidence that theory, however enticing it may appear to be, must be proven in the cold light of dawn. Those who forced the adoption of the 5.56mm and the M16 forgot this critical fact. And, in that cold light of dawn--this time in the steaming jungles of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos--the concept of saturation fire and general abandonment of the principles of individual marksmanship and weapon performance FAILED.
They failed because they were accepted as being the universal solution to all military problems and this attitude was transmitted during training to the troops. Tactics and weapons have been generated around this thesis for the last twenty years and have come back to haunt us. I know. I was there. I was one of those who wrote the letters to the families of those who had fallen in battle, one of the most difficult tasks of a commander. Many of those men died because of the failure of theoretically sound, but realistically invalid, policies. I saw it myself. Too many died because the 5.56 and M16 failed."

There is alot of info concerning the failure of the AR's in the desert, Jessica Lynch's convoy had a 90% failure rate of the AR platform, if this had happened during WWII what do you think would have happened. Even if you cut the rate in half 45% what do you think would have happened? For years our troops have been issued a weapon system that jambs.
One article, not saying it is the article just an artical:
http://www.defensereview.com/weapon...y-be-costing-lives-in-iraq-wabc-7-news-story/
Think about it, a varmit round? An aluminum receiver with forward assit? Direct gas into the action? Sand jambs it so fast it is amazing.
The claim that accesories can be added, look how long it took to get a flat top upper, what about the LRBM25? If the M14 had stayed as the choosen weapon how many models would have developed?



Jim
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,915 Posts
Jake2far you do know an AR-10 is 7.62x51 or .308 right?
Yes and it is listed in my rant.
The platform has the same problem, .308 or .223 doesn't matter.


I guess you didn't read the whole thing, can't say I blame you.
The original Stoner AR10 was what caliber? It was 308 and was developed in 1956, it was modified into the AR15 platform.
I guess the real question is, do you think the 308 caliber will perform any different than the 223? They are based on the same design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-10

Jim
 
  • Like
Reactions: foosa

· Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
The AR10 is a DI operated weapon and unless you compare the piston version to the M14 there is no comparison. IMHO the M14 was short changed back in the 60s but still being utilized today. With that said why a rifle platform with 60 or better years in service is not our primary battle weapon.


You can't beat a piston operated weapon and the M14 in my book ranks the highest .
 
  • Like
Reactions: cachunk

· Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Apparently, as long as I don't drag my M1A through the mud it seems to run OK... However, according to the boys at Guns & Ammo TV it doesn't like the mud.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0-3OQsnR-w&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL6FE1D1BA1251F07D[/ame]

Edmo
 

· Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
The AR10 is a DI operated weapon and unless you compare the piston version to the M14 there is no comparison. IMHO the M14 was short changed back in the 60s but still being utilized today. With that said why a rifle platform with 60 or better years in service is not our primary battle weapon.


You can't beat a piston operated weapon and the M14 in my book ranks the highest .
With respect, there have been quite a few problems reported with the piston driven HKs currently employed by certain units and said units have gone back to the DI M4s. I'll see if I can find the report in writing. With that said, nothing is perfect. The M14 was certainly ahead of its time during its inception but I do feel there are better choices available today.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
22,451 Posts
jake2far, you said it all. I carried an M14 in the RVN in the 60's and was there when we changed to the mouse guns. In my opinion this was one of poorest decisions made by the military ever.
Today both platforms have their use. The AR does make a better target rifle,but then bolt rifles are superior to the AR . It seems that the farther ahead we go the behinder we get. The M14 has proven to be a better battlefield weapon in all conditions, but current times and politics will not allow the powers that be to fess up to mistakes made in the past. This is true both politically and militarily. Modernization is not always the best solution. Our enemies used to fear our marksmanship on all fronts. This would be easily corrected. Better training with better equipment. More is not always better. Our current situation arround the world bears this out.
Semper Fi.
Art USMC 66-72 RVN 67-68
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,915 Posts
With respect, there have been quite a few problems reported with the piston driven HKs currently employed by certain units and said units have gone back to the DI M4s. I'll see if I can find the report in writing. With that said, nothing is perfect. The M14 was certainly ahead of its time during its inception but I do feel there are better choices available today.
I have an aversion to comments based on feelings. Please tell me what weapons platform in small arms is a better choice. You left the comment unfinished.
I don't base my conclusions on feelings, the M1 Garand/M14 platfrom has the best performance based history available. Can it jamb, yes, is it easier to unjamb, yes, I saw the above video showing the M1A doesn't like the mud, I would love to see the AR platform tested the same with a comparison to difficulty in rectification.
The Military tests of old were and are some of the toughest, well thought out, difficult tests ever devised. Funny, the AR platform was exempt from the old style tests, ever read about the tests performed on the AR in comparison to some other weapon, like the M14 vs the FN?
The greatest tests ever performed and are irrefutable, the WWII battelfield, the M1 was used by the millions around the world in every theater, if the weapon had failings it would have shown up. Now after all these years the shortcomings of the AR platform are out, if you search the info is available and it is not hard to find. History has shown that the AR platform should never have been deployed as a MAIN BATTLE RIFLE. If you want a target gun stick with the bolt action, the Military has, if you want a Main Battle rifle stick to the M14, the Military has, if you want a general weapons system to lay down suppresive fire(current Military doctrine) use the AR platform.
Old school aim at what you shoot, teach proper sight, trigger, position, and breathing.
Everyman is a rifleman has gone out the window.
So here is a thought, it was asked M14/M1A vs the AR in a 308, why, if the cartridge performs the same, if the AR platform is heavier, if the minute of man is enough to get the job done, would we even ask? If someone is hit by a 308 bullet from a M14, or the same target a man, is hit by an AR in 308 but the group size is smaller will the man be any deader? The only time group size matters is if you need more than 1 hit, the 308 round rarely needs more than 1 hit, can the same be said for the 223?
The whole idea around the AR platform was to make a lighter weapon, has it achieved this goal? What does the current M4 AR platform weigh?
If someone has a weapon system that is better, please step up and share, I have put my opinion out there and am looking forward to the debate, if a better weapon system exists I would trade or sell my beloved M1A's.
One of the finer points I have tried to illuminate, the current weapons are all from the 1950's, were is the new and improved weapon system, all are either M14, AR, or bolt actions, not one new proven system has come out since the 1950's. Dated? Really?
I love Bull Durham, there is a comment made about baseball:
"A good friend of mine used to say, 'This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains.' Think about that for a while."

War is a simple game, if you want to participate, you kill the people on the other side til they quit, you break all of their toys til they won't work.
The M14 platform based on the M1 Garand has done a better job at killing and breaking than any other weapons platform in history.



Jim
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,915 Posts
Hint of what was and is.

If the AR platform is a better design than why this?
Several companies have been working on and creating potential candidates for the U.S. Army's next primary weapon. The Heckler & Koch HK416 has been in use by Delta Force since 2004. The HK416 is offered as a conversion kit that can retrofit current M4 carbines. The HK416 recently won a testing competition for the US Marine Corps Infantry Automatic Rifle program and entered final testing as the M27 in summer 2010.[75] The HK416 is also one of several M4 designs on the front competitors of the Army's Individual Carbine competition.[76] The H&K's design replaces the direct impingement gas system with a newer piston design. The reason to build a new M4 is to produce a new more reliable carbine for US troops in a few years.[76]

The reliablity issue was and is the down fall of the AR platform, the future weapons designers are looking at a return to a "newer" piston design, where they get newer from is beyond me as the M1 Garand/M14 used the "newer" piston design. Seems to me we are going full circle.
When a weapon gets jambed it is highly probable that the person with the jamb will die, after all the weapon failed when most needed, the shooter was trying to shoot someone. Read up on the failures of the AR it is available. Than realize how many didn't come home because the system failed, now they want to improve the reliability by going away from the gas impingment system and install on the current M4 a gas piston system.
We had a gas piston system, if they wanted it lighter and smaller design around a different cartridge. The test data from WWII was the most complete data assembled.



Jim
 

· MGySgt USMC (ret)
Joined
·
7,047 Posts
Apparently, as long as I don't drag my M1A through the mud it seems to run OK... However, according to the boys at Guns & Ammo TV it doesn't like the mud.

Edmo
I've seen that video a dozen times and wondered why the guy never washed the rifle in the standing water. I also note there is no video of someone doing the same thing with an AR 15 or AR 10. I wonder if DPMS's sponsorship of the show had something to do with that? (That is prominently displayed right at the end of the video. Also, see Note#1 below.) If one gets that much mud in an AR type rifle, you are going to have to break it down to even get it to shoot as well as the M1A did in those conditions and it would take longer to clear it. Also, if you then dropped the bolt carrier group into the mud, you would be screwed.

Almost 40 years ago (actually this coming January or February) I did the actual Marine assault course for the first time and it was with the M16A1. The conditions were muddy, but not quite that muddy. We were FAR more careful of the receiver than the guy in the video. Afterwards, we had to break down our M16's and do a lot more to clean them to get them to operate than the guy in the video did.

I was a regular Infantry Weapons Repairman (Armorer) at the 3rd Echelon Shop in Las Pulgas aboard Camp Pendleton when we still had M14's as the standard service rifle for the 1st Marine Division as well as switching the Division over to the M16A1. I was a regular Armorer when we went on a special detail into Cambodia to destroy a CIA base. I was the NCOIC of a 3rd/Limited 4th Echelon Armory at Edson Range where Recruits were given their "Field Training" that was a shortened version of the Infantry Training Regiment that all Marines of my day and earlier went through. We also handled the repair of M16A2's for Qualification of Recruits and Requalification for Marines as well. I ran a 3rd/Limited 4th Echelon Infantry Weapons Repair Facility for 3rd Marine Division in the early 90's on Okinawa. Finally, I was the Ordnance Officer for an Artillery Battalion and then the Division Ordnance Chief for 1st Marine Division including our short stay in Somalia. So I have plenty of experience with both the M14 and AR platforms used and sometimes abused by the Combat Arms folks from 1971 through 1997. Oh, and I still remain in contact with folks who do the same thing in the Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan and in "procurement" today.

I don't hold romantic versions of small arms used by combat troops and I made that quite clear when I voted for the McMillan stock and SS barrel for the M40A1 Sniper Rifle over a wood or laminate stock and CM steel barrel, when we developed it in the early/mid 70's. IMO, the M14 was harder for combat troops to mess up and more robust than the AR platform. The M14 remains easier to clear in bad conditions than the AR platform. The AR platform is easier to "task orient" for different missions, though. I do not like the weight and bulk of the AR in .308, though, as it is slower to get into action. Of course when folks begin "bolting on" all kinds of accessories, the weight issue can become moot between the two systems. I also realize we are never going back to the M14 system as it costs too much to make. So what I hope for is an upgraded rifle in something like 6.8mm that will alleviate as many of the problems we have had with the M16 series as possible.

Note # 1. Until DPMS was bought out by the huge conglomerate that also bought Bushmaster, Remington, etc., etc. DPMS rifles were the poorest factory made AR's we came across when doing Police Armorer's courses. If there was a "real problem child rifle" in the class, it was almost always a DPMS rifle. Since they got bought out, Bushmaster must have taught DPMS to build a good rifle as they are much better today.
 
1 - 20 of 163 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top