[long trang]

Hello everyone!

I recently read a very interesting magazine article about a 10,000 round field test of the DSA SA 58 rifle. I enjoyed it very much and it got me to wondering if anyone has ever done a test comparable to this with our beloved M14's (M1A's). Can anyone shed any light on this topic?

I certainly can't knock the FAL - I have admired it for a long time. But, I can't help but wonder how a new M1A would fair in such a test.

All things equal, the orginal FAL's had gas problems in the Arctic trials of the T44 vs. the T48 way back in the early 1950's. These problems were eventually worked out by the engineering team, but not before it left a "bad taste" in the testing staff's reports. As I understand it, John C. Garand had been working with the T-44 developement team in the Cold Room at Ft. Benning and had already crossed the gas problem with the T-44 (M14) before the team ever left for Alaska. In short, the T-44 was much closer to being ready to field test then the T-48 (FAL) was.

Does anyone out there in M1A land have anything to add on this. If you know of some other type of extensive testing of the M14 and the results, I sure would like to hear from you. I would love to see another magazine article with a comparable test of the Springfield M1A and the 10,000 round "torture test". I think all of us M14 people deserve a chance to equal the score in testing!

Thanks for your help and thoughts on the matter!

 

[ZEITSEF]

Torture test

Those tests are always interesting however you can be assured you
WILL burn up a perfectly good barrel-I only have one M1A with
about 2000 rounds thru it in a year---TRW barrel still gauges less
then 1. That's the extent of my test.

 

[bodark]

Some one did this a while back.

They were going to test a SA M1A and a Chinese M14.
The Chinese was out of spec off the shelf.
The SA went the full 10,000 rounds.

I will see if I can dig up the article in the next week.

 

[SixTGunr]

Thanks bodark and "Welcome Aboard" ... :wink:

Would be interesting to see this one ...

Six

 

[Quagmire]

bodark: I don't believe that was a fair test myself.

The testers did not clean the cosmoline off the Poly or lube it up for shooting. They just shot it as it was. The M1A of course had no cosmoline on it & came somewhat lubed from the factory.

They called the poly a failure & quit testing it when the cosmoline caught fire & de-tempered the op rod spring. :roll:

I think MsgtMaze posted scans of the original article a while back. I've got it saved at home.

 

[Twiggy]

Heres a bit of Interesting history. In the 1950s The US government was testing the FAL and the M14 to see which would become the US battle rifle. Some say that the FAL did a little better but it was too heavy. Last year I was at a gun show and there was an origonal FAL there with a bi-pod on it and you better believe those first FALs were HEAVY. That thing would have been as bad to carry around as that M60 I had.
..............SP/4 Twiggy

 

[Different]

IIRC, Gun World magazine did a 10,000 round test of a standard model Springfield Armory M1A in 1990.

 

[bodark]

I was wrong

It was only a 5000 round test.

It is in GUNS, may 1994 issue. It was a test between a SA M1A and a Poly Tech m-14s.

The PT had headspace problems before it started.
They got about 438 rounds thru it before it quit cycling.

They fired 5000 rounds thru the SA. They had some problems, but fired all 5000. Since SA provided the ammo, I would have thought they would have provided new ammo vs surplus. I would say a lot of the problems were due to the lack/type of cleaning, surplus ammo and major wear and tear.

Sorry I dont have a scanner. I can't forward the article on. If someone does, I can send it to them snail mail and they can copy it.

To Different, I dont know if I have any of the Gun World magazines. I stopped looking when I found this article in box #16.

Other articles I found are:

The unknown middleweight-Springfield M1A in .243
The complete book of assault rifles 1983 issue

M14 rebirth of an american classic
SOF 1986 June

SA M1A Scout
Guns & Weapons for LE 2000 Feb

This is my rifle
Guns Sept 2000

 

[Twiggy]

Heres an interesting section from a web page

In 1953, the British Army adopted the FAL and the T65 round as their new standards.9 The pressure was now on the U.S. Army to adopt the FAL as well, so further tests were conducted. At first, the T44E4 didn't appear to perform very well, but intensive re-engineering efforts resulted in a vastly improved T44E4, able to compete head-to-head with the FAL. American-manufactured prototypes of the FAL, known as the T48, were manufactured by Harrington & Richardson to compete on an American-made, "equalized" basis with the T44E4, so no one could dispute adoption of either design.10 By March, 1955, the T44E4 appeared to be the better design, but the 7.62mm NATO round still caused uncontrollable fully-automatic fire in both the T44E4 and the FAL/T48.11 Refinement and testing continued on both designs and the T44E4 and the T48 remained equally strong candidates, but in the end, economic and nationalistic "ego" concerns resulted in the T44E4 being adopted as the United States Rifle, Caliber 7.62mm, M14 on 1 May 1957.12 At the same time, a heavy-barreled version called the T44E5 was briefly adopted as the M-15

Here is the web page for the whole article
http://mwilson.hypermart.net/views/guns/m14.html#STATS
........................Sp4Twiggy

 

[PapaFoxtrot]

At one of the tactical rifle courses I shot, there was a guy shooting his standard M1A and another guy with a DSA FAL. They were the only 7.62 shooters there. (I shot my AR. Did not want to hump the M1A through the close quarters. It worked perfectly and very accurately.)

The M1A ran perfectly also.

But the DSA was a club. Jam-o-matic. Looked very nice, but simply would not run at all. We all tried it, different ammo was tried, and two other of the guys were also familiar with FALs mechanically, and it was still on the fast track to the trade-in rack after the course ended.

That experience may be anecdotal to anyone reading this. To me it was a test where 2 rifles passed, and 1 failed.

 

[Another Bill]

That experience may be anecdotal indeed. Last summer I took my M1A out along with my AR-15. My M1A would not eject the rounds out of the action for love or money. My AR ran perfectly. So all M1A's suffer from FTE and all AR run perfectly, well of coourse not.
On the other hand our IPSC club has been shooting 3 gun since 1987 (long before IPSC did) and I RO and design a lot of the stage and there fore get a first hand view as to what gun design groups work and which do not. I have found the FAL to be one of the best and a lot of the shooter today are building them themselves in the garages. What I do notice is the vanishing og the M1A's from 3 gun competition. It is at least 75-80% AR-15 and rest is FAL and AK with a few Mini-14's and a SKS.

Bill

 

[MsgtMaze]

bodark: I don't believe that was a fair test myself.

The testers did not clean the cosmoline off the Poly or lube it up for shooting. They just shot it as it was. The M1A of course had no cosmoline on it & came somewhat lubed from the factory.

They called the poly a failure & quit testing it when the cosmoline caught fire & de-tempered the op rod spring. :roll:

I think MsgtMaze posted scans of the original article a while back. I've got it saved at home.

I think this is what you are looking for? http://www.xmg.ca/m14.htm

Greg

 

[Quagmire]

Greg,

Yup, that's the one. Thanks!

JP

 

[m14dan]

I just had to go buy a new shotgun for my son and since I didn't have any money I took the fal to trade. I guess the m-14 in the safe won that time too. I will never get rid of it for anything. I got a good deal on the fal though. He traded for a almost new in perfect shape rem 1100 and a bunch of military m1911 parts. I liked the fal but my son has been using a single shot h&R 12 ga since he was 5 and he is 10 now and it was time to graduate. These texas dove aren't any fun with a single shot. I love my m-14 and I can't really say the fal was a bad rifle just couldn't use cast bullets in it like with the m-14. I never have a problem with them in the 14.

 

[barebow]

Hello everyone!

I recently read a very interesting magazine article about a 10,000 round field test of the DSA SA 58 rifle. I enjoyed it very much and it got me to wondering if anyone has ever done a test comparable to this with our beloved M14's (M1A's). Can anyone shed any light on this topic?

I certainly can't knock the FAL - I have admired it for a long time. But, I can't help but wonder how a new M1A would fair in such a test.

All things equal, the orginal FAL's had gas problems in the Arctic trials of the T44 vs. the T48 way back in the early 1950's. These problems were eventually worked out by the engineering team, but not before it left a "bad taste" in the testing staff's reports. As I understand it, John C. Garand had been working with the T-44 developement team in the Cold Room at Ft. Benning and had already crossed the gas problem with the T-44 (M14) before the team ever left for Alaska. In short, the T-44 was much closer to being ready to field test then the T-48 (FAL) was.

Does anyone out there in M1A land have anything to add on this. If you know of some other type of extensive testing of the M14 and the results, I sure would like to hear from you. I would love to see another magazine article with a comparable test of the Springfield M1A and the 10,000 round "torture test". I think all of us M14 people deserve a chance to equal the score in testing!

Thanks for your help and thoughts on the matter!

Hi i have found a test for you its no torture test but maybe you can do somthing with it!
http://www.entreprise.com/News/Articles/guntestapril_99.htm
Barebow.

 

[SixTGunr]

teenage queens...........

"Loving a teenage queen...

...would cost me my M14 8O :lol: "

 

[barebow]

Re: teenage queens...........

"Loving a teenage queen...

...would cost me my M14 8O :lol: "

Thats right !!! thats wy I dont want ........

Barebow.