M14 Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Took three rifles to range the other day. Beretta 308 Garand, Norinco tuned M305,Poly tech G.I.build M305 (M305=M1A). The Beretta outshoots the M14 type rifle consistently with all loads , milsurp, PMC and reloads.It does this every time. Typical 8 shots into 1.5" an irregular ragged hole with 1 shot 1/2' outside the cluster. The tuned Norinco almost as good with loads it likes and the G.I. parts rifle 3" average a 2" group something to celebrate.Norinco all Chinese parts except replaced rear sight with Garand sight. Gas systems on both unitized, same smith for both 14's.Guess I'll try tweaking the "build" rifle. Most $ in it, poorest shooterRNGR4
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
working on M1A type rifles

just frustration. My Garands seem to give me fewer headaches, shoot better groups and are more reliable than my M1A type rifles and I always thought, hoped it wasn't supposed to be that way.With the garands I just clean, grease and shoot. The new fangled rifle need their gas systems unitized, better op rod spring guides, gas system innards,etc. and don't seem to shoot any better, sometimes not even as well as the older system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
OK, I see. I had three Greek return Garands from the CMP that looked like broomsticks and did't shoot much better that a broomstick. I went looking for ways to improve the rifles and found out that I would be trying to emulate the M14. So, I sold my three M1's and now have three M14 types. Mine all shoot well, some others of the type shoot not as well, maybe like yours. Do they shoot better or worse than 4-5 MOA? I recall that was what was 'expected' from the design. You can use this to learn about what makes them shoot better or worse. Experiment, try swapping parts if possible and if you load your own ammo, try different combinations to see what works for your rifles. It's all fun, just sometimes you don't hit the X, but you should be on paper !

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
....Guess I'll try tweaking the "build" rifle. Most $ in it, poorest shooterRNGR4

People seem to forget that the M-14 is a battle rifle, designed for
combat accuracy. A job that it does exceptionally well!

It is not an out of the box precision target rifle.

If you want a target rifle then the M-14 must be "modified" in various
ways to achieve target accuracy.

A bunch of USGI parts or a forged receiver does not automatically guarantee an accurate rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
People seem to forget that the M-14 is a battle rifle, designed for
combat accuracy. A job that it does exceptionally well!

It is not an out of the box precision target rifle.

If you want a target rifle then the M-14 must be "modified" in various
ways to achieve target accuracy.

A bunch of USGI parts or a forged receiver does not automatically guarantee an accurate rifle.
Basically all true.

If you are asking why go with an M14 vs Garand there are two main reasons. Full Auto capability and larger magazine capacity.

Not for a better target rifle.

My stock Garand at 100m shoots tighter groups than my Socom. I just see it as a challenge to tweak the Socom to get the groups similar. Some could just be the difference in the sights between my two rifles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,055 Posts
Took three rifles to range the other day. Beretta 308 Garand, Norinco tuned M305,Poly tech G.I.build M305 (M305=M1A). The Beretta outshoots the M14 type rifle consistently with all loads , milsurp, PMC and reloads.It does this every time. Typical 8 shots into 1.5" an irregular ragged hole with 1 shot 1/2' outside the cluster. The tuned Norinco almost as good with loads it likes and the G.I. parts rifle 3" average a 2" group something to celebrate.Norinco all Chinese parts except replaced rear sight with Garand sight. Gas systems on both unitized, same smith for both 14's.Guess I'll try tweaking the "build" rifle. Most $ in it, poorest shooterRNGR4
In your specific case I will put forth my theory of your situation...

You just got lucky with your Garand and have a very good one.DI2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
896 Posts
I just see it as a challenge to tweak the Socom to get the groups similar. Some could just be the difference in the sights between my two rifles.
This is what interests me -- the challenge. Take a battle rifle and make it accurate, while still holding true to the battlefield roots.

1/2 MOA rifle out of the box? Bor-ing! GI2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
2cts worth...

FWIW, I had shot '03s and Garands a long time before my wife presented me with my M1a. Consistantly tight groups and solid long range shooting with both platforms in 30-06, tons of fun, though the edge in accuracy was definitely with the '03.

My International Harvester Garand is a DCM rifle, maybe I got lucky but I can tell you that there's an inherent accuracy potential there. My Smith Corona 'O3-A3 (CMP, raffle rifle) is amazingly accurate, also received thru DCM. It's a near MOA rifle with good ammo, obviously a huge factor.

Truth be known, I had expected better accruacy from my M1a when I first got it. But like someone said above, "it's a battle rifle" - it's definitely that and more in my mind. Scoped now, I'm getting better groups with my M1a (my Mk1 Eyeballs ain't what they used to be!)...part of the problem was the operator! And again, quality ammo is a big factor. Don't expect to nail palm sized groups at 100yds with some of the third world surplus ammo that's out there - ain't gonna compare to match/target.

Compare the Garand with the M1a, but keep in mind the differences. Remember, the first Garands that the Jarheads got were sneered at and pushed away in favor of their treasured '03s. That attitude changed pretty quickly on Guadualcanal. The Army doggies started "losing" a lot of Garands to Marine "accquisitions" - semi-auto, eight rounds, enbloc clip as compared to the '03 bolts. Do the math.

Same with the M1a as compared with the Garand - 20rd box mag with optional full-auto...plus, a different caliber - .308. For "battle rifle" purposes, I'll take a M1a over a Garand for those reasons. You can reload a M1a mag midway, but not a Garand enbloc clip. Plus, it's a dead give away to the bad guys when you hear that "twang" as the enbloc clip is ejected - that rifle is empty and the shooter has to reload.

Enough said, sorry for hopping up on the soapbox. It's just that all three are our nation's chosen service rifles for three very different periods in time. All are great, in my mind, and a hellovalot better than what the bad guys were carrying.

USMC-1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
914 Posts
"Chitter"???? And Now: A far-too-long post. You're welcome!

This is what interests me -- the challenge. Take a battle rifle and make it accurate, while still holding true to the battlefield roots.

1/2 MOA rifle out of the box? Bor-ing! GI2
Boh-Ring? Actually, fully agreed! I've decided that this is exactly what recently attracted me to this perplexing platform; the challenge and the history.

As a gunny for well over 28 yrs, and building full-on custom rifles for >> 20 of those, I've gotten quite bored with producing yet another 0.5" hunting rifle out of, say, a Sako 75/85 action, a fluted 26" Krieger SS match-grade bbl in, let's say, .338-06 Ackley, and a Lone Wolf Action Gear or McMillan stock, running a Jewell trigger and a Leupold VX-III scope.

Frankly, that is quite easy to accomplish, and it takes less money than building up a highest-end M1A. I can build and sell you one such custom hunting rifle (which will, I'll admit, only weighs, with scope & sling, about 8 lb instead of the M1A's 14#... sigh) for about $3800 - $4200.

I recently did just that (the hyper-accurate bolt hunting rifle I mean) for a just-retired VP of a large national corp, a guy who had for years arrived at his annual Montana Elk hunt with a Rem 700 chambered in 7 Rem Mag, while all his buds had their Weatherby Mags (one guy even shows up every year with a .378 Wby Mag. For Elk. Ouch!).

Then my guy showed up at the annual sighting in, fired 3 shots, his loud-mouthed buddies laughingly yowling "there's only one shot hit the page, HAHA!", and laughed... until he retrieved his target. All 3 shots @ 100 yds into <0.3 inches. Simple enough, but it was exactly what he wanted to do, it's an easy carry, and he got his elk @ about 280 yds, one shot.

My point is not to toot my own gun-building horn, but if you have to have such accuracy (and frankly, it usually costs a lot less than what this guy paid, to get this same sort of accuracy from a new but lightly tweaked Rem or Savage or Win or Ruger bolt gun) and you want an easily transportable hunting rifle, then yeah; the M1A might not be your first choice.

It's a lot like rodding-up your big block Chevy engine, or better yet, the small block, in your own back yard shop. Lots and LOTs and LOTTTSSSS of options and tricks and techniques, and you get to be the guy who puts it all together, who figures it out, who has the initial interest, enthusiasm and finally, who gets to enjoy the ultimate satisfaction of shooting it at the range the first time, and seeing those 1.5" groups from a rifle designed (let me repeat that one... DESIGNED... )to only shoot into 3 or so inches!

More than quite good enough when the designated bad-guy "gooks" are charging you from about 75 - 100 m out, and you really can't have that chamber overheating, carboning-up and jamming. What a hoot that would be, huh? What, "fix bayonets" on your M-16 when the oncoming group is only 20 yds out? How pleasant that would be!

So, for me, I have found the rifle charmingly/frustratingly mystical, with lots of areas of "concern" to ultimate accuracy, where you can overcome these issues.

These fixes are exactly the result of the efforts of a dedicated "band of brothers" who have decided to engineer, back-engineer, or over-engineer, those original issues, ones that it's designers obviously knew were not of import back in 1957. If they'd wanted a sub MoA sniper rifle, they would have (and did) use an accurized bolt gun, like an "sniperized" '03 or Win 70, scoped with an early Weaver steel tube. Those shot all day into 1 or .5" in true battle conditions.

Yes, the modern flat-topped Rock River or Stag or whatever... M-16/AR-15/M-4/Ar platform is, design-wise, inherently far more accurate. Far more, in fact. Precision, tight clearances, and with a superior lock-up. great after-market triggers, solid piston systems, SS match bbls, and so on. All very nice, but not quite right for actual sand/ice/mud filled battlefield conditions. Thank God we did not have to fight the Russians in WW-II out on the Eastern Front even with the current M-4, against their Moisin Nagants, which were beyond reliable! (I doubt if the current 5.56mm light bullet would even penetrate a 1944's full-wool greatcoat, plus all the under-clothing, the Russians were wearing in those conditions, out past much over 80 - 100 m! There'd just be a quiet "thud" and the guy would just keep coming, covered in a thick ice-layer, and with a REALLY grim look in his eyes, focused on YOU and your jammed-up mouse gun!)

In a real battlefield (and just watch those old films about Hitler's boyz out in western Russia. Good Christmas!), what else matters besides reliability & penetration, all other things being equal! (Even Custer had problems with the Trapdoors seizing up under continuous fire, as the native warriors hastily rode up with their antique ancient sharpened sticks! Those things must have really hurt though... Ouch!)

We'd have had to surrender to the Russians after about 12 hours!

So! Get yourself your first (possibly of several) M1A platforms, enjoy it's uniqueness, it's history,[including it's current-day use in the sandbox] and it's obvious fun quotient. You'll be simultaneously inducted into this curmudgeonly brotherhood, with all it's old tyme ['60s - 70s] political ideals (freedom, personal responsibility, "anti-socialist-gun-control crap" philosophies, and quite a few -opinionated guys with enviable and respected real battle experiences, and oh yeah: ownership of a wonderful but "politically deferred" rifle!)

All hail!

Enough said, sorry for hopping up on the soapbox. It's just that all three are our nation's chosen service rifles for three very different periods in time. All are great, in my mind, and a hellovalot better than what the bad guys were carrying.

USMC-1
just to add here: let's not dismiss that AK-47. The Russians knew exactly what they needed out in the real world, and despite it's rep as a rattly piece of junk, they knew exactly why it had to be designed and built so lossey-goosey, rattle-trappy, capable of what? 6" @ 80 - 100 m?

Good enough, since it NEVER EVER failed in the field! If we'd subjected the then-new M-16, back in the '60s, to such rigorous field trials, we'd probably have a modded version of the M1A, all tarted up in alloys and such, right now, instead of having to cotinuously work on the built-in engineering and ballistics flaws of our M4!

Note that the Brits, who were ramrodded by NATO (i.e.: the US Gov'mint) into most everything they had to use, eventually went with their superior late '70s Enfield-designed bullpup carbine. Too bad we also didn't take a closer non-political look their .280 cartridge.... I'm just sayin....

PS: "Chitter"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
battle rifle, indeed

People seem to forget that the M-14 is a battle rifle, designed for
combat accuracy. A job that it does exceptionally well!

It is not an out of the box precision target rifle.

If you want a target rifle then the M-14 must be "modified" in various
ways to achieve target accuracy.

A bunch of USGI parts or a forged receiver does not automatically guarantee an accurate rifle.
i could not agree more,if you and your "service rifle'' can hold the 10 ring you and your rifle are doing well.rack grade or service rifle means what it says. to tighten things up one needs to understand how all components affect acuracy.unitize or atleast shim gas cylinder,clearance handguard so it is not tight between front band and receiver,bed the action to provide some pressure between font stock ferrule and front band, the list goes on and on.read Kuhnhausen along with the amu guide on accurizing.production guns are hit and miss but with a little know how you can make it better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
420 Posts
I don't know about you guys, but I would be much happier if these M14s shot 1/2 MOA out of the box. I would also have a good amount more money in my pocket.

Then again, I have a tendency to put away a rifle when there isn't something to mess with on it. These M1A / M14 types tend to get a lot of attention but I am not always sure it is a good thing to NEED to keep tweaking a gun to get it to perform up to expectations.

So far, I have had exactly ONE rifle that shot 1/2 MOA out of the box. I have had plenty that would shoot under 1 MOA though. Most don't.

Sometimes boring is good.
- Ivan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,046 Posts
The M1 has a thicker barrel than the M14. Also your M1 is a Beretta and not Chinese. That tells me all I need to know. The Chinese stuff is good but not great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
M1A (M14) are battle rifles, as someone mentioned. They are not intended as say an Accuracy Int. precession rifle - the M1A can be modified to get groups just as a precession rifle.
The only thing I could say is - your M1a's are Chinese......your Garand - even in .308 is Italian made with U.S. machinery.

U.S.A > China or some bumper stick style motto.
 
1 - 19 of 19 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