From the U.S. Rifle 7.62MM, M14 and M14E2 Field Manual No. 23-8 dated 7 May 1965.

Weights in Pounds (approximate):

M14 rifle with full magazine and cleaning equipment, 11 1/4
M14 rifle with full magazine and cleaning equipment, selector, and bipod, 13
Empty magazine, 1/2
Full magazine (with ball ammunition), 1 1/2
Cleaning equipment, 2/3
M2 bipod, 1 3/4
M14E2 rifle with full magazine, 14 1/2

Some numbers to think about hirdlej.DI5

 

Depends on what you intend to do with it and what accuracy you desire. The medium NM barrel of the loaded is a significant upgrade.

I prefer the standard for mere range trips as it is lighter. I have several NM and SM variants and find them cumbersome.

 

I went to the gun shop yesterday since they had both models in stock with walnut. I held the standard and it felt so great in my hands. I picked up the loaded and I immediatly noticed the difference in weight. I prefer the feel of the standard, but I don't want to compromise accuracy either since I will be scoping whatever M1A I purchase. I read this and i read that, and I can't find a definate answer if one is more accurate than the other. I'm trying to justify going with the loaded model, but it's hard when people say the standard is lighter and often times in most cases, just as accurate. What do I do!?!?!? GI1 If it means anything, this rifle's intention is to be used 99.9% at the range (200 yards max) and for a SHTF situation, I wanted a military based high power rifle that isn't plastic and looks nice. GI2
My expectation is with match grade ammo and a $500 budgeted scope, that I could hit 1-2MOA consistently from a rest. Am I being unrealistic?


By the way, I frequent a lot of other gun forums (1911, Colt, Ruger, etc) and I'm just getting into my first M1A. You guys are by far the fastest responding and nicest folks I've come across so far. I like this place! Now to buy my first M1A.......

 

IMy expectation is with match grade ammo and a $500 budgeted scope, that I could hit 1-2MOA consistently from a rest. Am I being unrealistic?

By the way, I frequent a lot of other gun forums (1911, Colt, Ruger, etc) and I'm just getting into my first M1A. You guys are by far the fastest responding and nicest folks I've come across so far. I like this place! Now to buy my first M1A.......

First question is with good ammo you will get 2.0 MOA. You may need to perform a trigger mod and ditch the USGI spring guide.

Second...you will in no way be disappointed with an M1A. They shoot like a dream. Recoil is so very mild and the irons on these babies are fantastic. Sight picture is the best I've seen on a battle rifle. Go get yourself a rifle. They are the best rifles I own and my favorite shooters along with my M1 Carbines.

 

Go with the loaded standard M1A. For SHTF, get a carry sling to help bear the weight.

 

You'll find the 0.5 lb weight difference between the standard and loaded to be less significant after you've added 1.5 to 2.5 lbs for a scope and its mount. Then consider if a bipod is in your future; the 'portable bench' will add another pound, not to mention the weight of whatever rail system you use to mount it.

Then there is the cheek rest you'll add-on so you can maximize scope usage. Rather than adding a rail adapter for the bipod and a cheek rest, you might consider a new, stiffer stock that has the bipod rail and the cheek rest already incorporated into it.

All in all, unless you a very fit young man, you’ll find shooting either the standard or the loaded to be a physical challenge. If weight is to be your primary concern, then you ought to be looking at a scout rather than a full size M1A. Most folks with the scout type rifles, though, end up with the all the add-ons anyway as running through the brush with a rifle isn’t as satisfying a shooting a tight group at 200 yards.

In summary, the rifle equipped to meet your performance requirements will weigh somewhere in the 14 to 16 lb range.

 

I'm a halfway fit (who am I kidding) 31 year old. Does that count for anything??? USN2

I have the opportunity to buy a M1A Standard walnut for $1325 shipped. I wonder if I should take it or hold out for a better deal on a loaded.......

Talking to the springfield CS rep yesterday, she said all orders are 3-6 months out RNGR4

 

At the 200yd ranges you mentioned there shouldn't be but an inch or two difference. You will appreciate the weight difference if you are going to "hump" it for any length of time. This is especially true after you add a scope and mount. The standard is available now, at a reasonable price. dozier

 

I prefer the standard. My recent USGI M14 clone weighs just above 9 lbs with a Sadlak NM spring guide and USGI stock. This rifles shoots 2.0 - 2.5 MOA with surplus. I don't think this surplus shoots any better from my Glenn Nelson built SM.

The newer SAI standard barrels are 6 groove, 1:11 twist so not much difference in the medium 1:11 except the heat sink of the chamber area and the air gauge premium barrel. It will shoot better, but how much is not known. I was mightily impressed with my USGI loaded model though. The barrel did make a difference. I just like the light weight and slim profile of the USGI stock.

I shoot all my rifles with irons and keep them KISS. All except my M4gery which sports an Aimpoint T-1.

 

My M14 has a 1963 GI barrel and it is more accurate than I know what to do with.

Hammonjoe is on point, these have to be the best sights to ever grace a rifle.

Had a whole slew of military style rifles, kept the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine and built the M14. Ditched the rest. Except for sometimes an AR, aint started missing any of them yet.

 

In late 1961 Aberdeen Proving Ground ran a bunch of tests on production rifles. They weighed 7 rifles from each of SA, H&R, and Winchester.

The lightest was 8.5 lbs, heaviest was 9.13 lbs, most seemed to average about 8.7 to 8.8 lbs.

I have found that wood M14 stocks vary quite a bit in weight, that's where the differences come from. It's just the density of the wood grain in that particular stock.

If you want a lighter rifle, hand pick a lighter stock.