What is the verdict on the M14/M1A?

File: WP_20150211_013.jpg (346KB, 1632x918px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1632x918px

It all comes down to why you want it.

If it's for a range queen/looks/impractical reasons, go right ahead. Buy it, you'll love it.

If it's for collection, be sure to get a mostly US GI one, the new models will not appreciate.

If it's for practical use/shtf planning/etc, you will be better served with something else.

>>28314457
It has little to no merits over a similarly priced ar-10 or even some g3 clone.

>>28314495
>g3 clone
My bad forgot to mention, I'm from Canada. So no G3's and FALs..
>>28314482
>It all comes down to why you want it.
Literally the first time I saw it was probably in either FMJ, Forest Gump, or BHD. If I were to make it into shtf, I'd save for an EBR chassis or something.

Are they generally easy to work on? Install drop-in parts, etc? I can score a new Norc M1A for under 700, or a used one for like 4-600. But I would want to get USGI parts to switch them out.

On another note, how would an M1A compare to an SKS when shooting under 100m?

>>28314520
Oh fuck nigga don't bother with upgrading the m14 to ebr or otherwise.

Take it from someone who got issued one, that this is front heavy as fuck

>28314520
The ebr chassis weighs more than the wood stock. Compare to the sks how? Probably more accurate, heavier, far more powerful round the sks can hold more ammunition.

>>28314457
M1A is a jamomatic in harsh conditions.

>>28314457

M1A's are kinda bad.

If you want a good M14, buy a more expensive one.

My father was in USMC in the early 1960s, when M14 was switched over to M16.
From that point forward, as a 20 year old corporal radio operator, he knew command was absolutely fubar and operatin H.U.A. Finally, at 70 years old, he agreed to shoot an AR again.
Dammned if it didn't ftf in the middle of a 20rd mag.

FUBAR Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition
H.U.A. Head Up Ass

I love the marine corps, if only for the lexicon.

>>28314576
I always felt that thing looked really light on the rear end

>>28314719
>>28314742
nogunz and their memes

>>28314457
well there isnt a whole lot of options for NR semi auto .308 in Canada unless your willing to spend 3 or 4 times as much money so I say go for it.

It's overrated by its fans and underrated by its detractors.

>out of the box accuracy
Unless something's wrong with it it's very accurate for an infantry rifle. Tuned up it can be very tight.

>weight
It's lighter than a FAL

>cost of ammo
.50/rd USD isn't as bad as .30-06 or .303 Brit.

It won't be as easy to get as accurate as an AR-10, and ARs have a lot more modularity and easy of modification. But compared to a slavshit gun like an SKS it's a much better shooting experience. Even with USGI accuracy standards these are effective guns out to 600m.

Something you need to realize about the M14 is just how ancient a design it is. When most of it was designed no one really knew what a semi auto battle rifle should look like. So it has the ergonomics and shooting feel of a bolt gun, which is great for civilian shooting. The flip side is that it has so much exposed action it's not as dirt-proof as an AR or G3. But that doesn't make it unusually unreliable--no one shittalks the Garand but that gun arguably fouls more easily. Solders in the Pacific found volcanic sand would jam them tight.

File: 84d7dc2e2ee3e78bf4f8101b4a344623.jpg (167KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 736x552px

>>28314457
Speaking as a Canuck, if you can find a deal on one, go for it.

I've had the chance to try a couple different style of the Norc's.
>M305 in polymer stock felt like shit, just "off"
>M305 in Blackfeather stock was hefty but solid, shot very nicely

I just picked up my own Norc M14 (not M305) in a USGI walnut stock (for $300) and it feels great. Still need to zero with optics and do some tuning but it's great so far.

For a NR .308, your other options are the Keltec RFB or Robinson XCR.

>obligatory M14

>>28315081
It is rather unreliable in muddy and extremely cold conditions due to how the gun is designed. It has all kinds of stuff exposed.

>>28315992
>When most of it was designed no one really knew what a semi auto battle rifle should look like.
Good perspective.

>>28316120
>I just picked up my own Norc M14 (not M305) in a USGI walnut stock (for $300) and it feels great.
Was this off cgn?

File: 2015-12-20 19.46.24.jpg (4MB, 2000x3555px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2000x3555px

>>28316671
I was looking on CGN but put an ad out on my local FB pages.
Somebody nearby didn't want it anymore...said the stock was beat up. After some work I got it cleaned up, and now I'm waiting on a GI top cover.

>>28316671
>>When most of it was designed no one really knew what a semi auto battle rifle should look like.
>Good perspective.

Early production semi guns still followed the concept of "bolt gun with something to move the bolt" It wasn't until late WW2 that they thought to have an enclosed operating mechanism with a receiver that formed the backbone of the gun instead of the stock.

The Garand was designed around 1930, and he originally wanted to use box mags and a smaller cartridge. One of the competing guns was the White rifle. Guess what the M14 is? It's a Garand action, using box mags and a smaller cartridge, with White's gas system. Plus an afterthought of a full-auto sear. Army brass picked a gun from 1930 in their 1955 trials.

Things like the FAL and G3 were very post-WW2 designs. Sheetmetal, unitized receivers, dust covers, polymers, etc. The AK-47 too. And the AR10 was a good ten years ahead of its time technology wise.

The basic problem with the M14 isn't that it's a bad gun. It's that it's so different from its contemporaries. For a one of us this is pretty irrelevant since a K98K is still a great gun to shoot despite no military issuing bolt guns in 50 years.

File: Snapshot_5.jpg (34KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x480px

>>28314520
>EBR chassis or something.
Heavy as fuck, requires a good bit of effort to make work correctly.

>Are they generally easy to work on? Install drop-in parts, etc?

Yes and no, you have to lean what your doing or you will fuck things up. Learn to tune an M1a before you consider buying one.


how would an M1A compare to an SKS when shooting under 100m?

M1a NM , will shoot colvers at that range, but it'd heavy as fuck and hard to do offhand. A great SKS will do ~1.5 MOA and be easier to fire standing.


I love mine, it is my SHTF weapon, but I also have an DPMS Carbine.

>>28314596

>the sks can hold more ammunition.

If you put a mag on it, which IIRC is usually unreliable.

>>28314576
>front heavy as fuck
Always heard they snap shoot like shotguns though,

File: The M14 Rifle.jpg (122KB, 800x570px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 800x570px

>>28315992
Excellent post.

>>28314742
>If you want a good M14, buy a more expensive one.

Such as?

>>28320071
Smith enterprise

>>28314457
If you want one to be very accurate, you are going to have to shell out the dough, and don't expect it to stay right if you are rough with it.

Accurate M1a's have good barrels, unitized gas block assembly's, and are either bedded or in some kind of chassis. So it either weights a shit ton with the chassis or you CAN NOT take the action out of the stock or the bedding starts to degrade. This type of accuracy is generally beyond what most people want or need so if you are ok with it being just a farely accurate gun then its not so bad.

Also scoping one is a bitch.

They are meme rifles that retarded nostalgia fags like.

just buy an AR-10 or a SCAR 17 if you want a competent 308 semi auto

>>28320176
>Also scoping one is a bitch.

Why do people say this shit? It's not like you're drilling for a scope mount or putting some creaky assembly of parts together. My Bassett mount goes on in 30 seconds.

The only real issues are you need a cheek riser and the mount gets in the way of fingerfucking the bolt and chamber.

File: dont shoot dogs either.jpg (27KB, 334x750px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 334x750px

Make sure it stays away from 14" of shoestring

>>28314457

Only 'upgrades' I recommend are the GI NM flash suppressor with bayonet lug if yours doesn't come with the lug. If yours comes with the lug you probably won't notice an improvement in the NM suppressor over stock. This rifle must have a bayonet, it's not optional. It has basically zero muzzle climb with bayo installed and besides that it's a fucking battle rifle, get a bayonet.

Also the sadlak spring guide for smoother action is nice but not necessary, you may not even notice a difference.

>>28320202
>>28320202
there are also issues with centering the mount and keeping it solid.

>>28319610
They don't.

File: 2015-07-05 21.28.07.jpg (564KB, 1886x1061px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 1886x1061px

What's they best groups your M1A's can shoot? My Loaded M1A can only get 3 inch groups at 100 yards with xm80c.

>>28320088
>smith
Yuck.

>>28314482
I like this collection, but it is missing an STGW57.

Also including the garand just opens up a huge can of worms in terms of shit that should also be included. The garand is to the m14/m1a like the fn49 is to the fal, and the g43/ag42 is to the g3, and the mas49 is to the mas49/56. and if you include all those, you really should include the svt40, and its successor, the sks. of course, that also would mean you would require a rasheed and a cz52/57 for comparability.

milsurp is addicting. I think I need help.

>>28320071
LRB and Fulton Armory are going to be nicer than almost anything you'll get out of Springfield.

>>28314457
>American as you can get
>norinco

They are fun but an AR is obviously going to have a leg up on a lot of fronts. If you're engaging targets 1-300m away there is no point in getting an m14/m1a over an AR.

>>28314482
You need an svt

>>28314852
BOHICA!

>>28320202
A FA 3 point mount takes a bit longer than that to properly mount. Your only options are either a decent receiver mount or get a handguard mounted bracket, neither of which is standard on moat models.

Look OP.
People on k used to worship the M14 as god tier until Ian McCollum rolled one around in the mud and talked about how he personally didn't like it. Now the prevailing opinion is that it's a chauchat-tier jammomatic with the accuracy of a flare gun.

Truth lies in the middle. They are very capable rifles, although 2k+ on a fancier one is hard to justify. They are reliable but not immune to abuse or neglect. They are fairly accurate but more easy to shoot well than mechanically inclined towards precision.

In the 4channer sense that "if X is objectively better than Y, that means Y is shit and you're stupid for buying it" the M14 sucks. But reality is more complicated. If you like it, as a rifle it's good enough, by all means buy it. Especially in Canada where Norincos are so cheap there's no reason not to. I hear build quality on the Chinese is hit or miss so I wouldn't buy one sight unseen. Solid receivers though.

>>28322835
Fulton Armory still builds their rifles on cast receivers.

>>28326589
Nigger this has nothing to do with ian.

The m14 has a history of being an old fart's gun, heavy, innacurate and generally frustrating to work with. Worse still, the EBR kit is universally despised by the people who were issued it. We had one of those guys in this thread and he didn't approve.

Ian's video is just the final nail in a coffin so fucking full of nails it might as well be an iron maiden. It's not as accurate as its competitors, it's heavy, it's rather expensive, I find the recoil to be unpleasant, and its unreliable. The MAS did better. That's right, it lost to a FRENCH gun. Your gun lost to a county that doesn't even know how to build a proper wall.

Really unless the m14 is your only option, I see no reason to buy one.

File: e55-4.jpg (41KB, 540x403px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 540x403px

>>28315992
finally a sensible post

M1A's are sweet. ...SWEET. You can dial in that rear sight and you can shoot effectively out to 500m with iron sights ...right out of the box. The thing is a damned sewing machine from which bullets fly.

Now...like the first reply to OP, it comes down to "what do you want to use it for?". OP has posted they're interested in putting things on the rifle, and shooting well at 100m or less. For this reason, I recommend an AR-15. 5.56 ammo is plentiful and a fine round for shooting. You can accessorize the rifle, and shoot it effectively out to 500m. It's a fine weapon system.

Now...I would like to encourage people to shut the fuck up with their opinions just because they saw a Youtube video poo-pooing the M1A for one reason or another. Learn marksmanship and get a broad base of experience, and you can criticize other people's rifles.

>>28327478
>I find the recoil to be unpleasant
hot opinions

>>28327478
i'll kill you

>>28327871
But they are innacurate, see >>28321853

>>28327887
u shut your little whore mouth

File: Important Lesson.jpg (1MB, 1496x3644px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1496x3644px

>>28327901
Why so mad?

>>28323022
>>norinco
muh forged receivers

File: PSA-16inch-Upper-Bump-Fire.jpg (96KB, 676x902px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 676x902px

I have a NM M1A...

Gas system and Op rod system are fucking archaic and the gun weighs more than your mom... Good magazines are hard as fuck to find and if you have a bad magazine you will literally shred and crush your ammo, or just have your last round go flying 15 feet out of the top. And a lot of places sell good mags but they're actually cheap shitty mags.

On the other hand, I can hold MOA at 200 yards, and pop clay pigeons while rapid firing at 100 yards. Chamber is tight but not too hard to reload for. The 1:10 really likes 168 and 175 gr, so if you're a cheap shit who just buys NATO bullshit, go for the 1:11.

Only photo I have of it and it's old and shitty.

>>28328104
Too bad the op rod doesnt like 175s or even 168s

>>28328126

You sure? I've shot 3-4K 168's through mine.

>Fed 215M primer
>2.800 OAL
>2.005 COAL
>168 GR SMKHP
>41 gr IMR 4895

Never had a single issue. Gun runs like a fucking champ.

>>28328126

Also should mention I only shot 168's through my H&R M1, with original gas plug. Gave them a light IMR 4895 load, same primers, and max OAL.

Those rounds shit on 80's LC surplus.

>>28319955
more of this?

>>28328186
Heavier rounds will cause the oprod to wear earlier. 168s arent too heavy, 175s are getting a bit much. There are ways of mitigating it though.

File: 295.jpg (994KB, 3197x1261px) Image search: [Google]

994KB, 3197x1261px

>>28314457

There has not been a single time where I have taken my M1A to the range and not gotten compliments on it.

They shoot well and they look sexy AF. pic related, my M1A.

>ywn own a TRW M14
fucking ATF REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: IMG_0398 small.jpg (755KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

755KB, 1440x1080px

It's alright.

File: m1a1.jpg (2MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2656x1494px

>>28314457
If you want a range toy or want to impress oldfags get a m14 clone, if you want to something easy to scope, upgrade or just an all around better design get an AR.

File: smurf.jpg (41KB, 499x459px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 499x459px

>>28329331
Your going to make
>>28327871
>>28327901
crazy mad

File: 1448336782503.jpg (21KB, 396x385px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 396x385px

>>28329331
Just something about that bayonet lug that "balances" it out.

>>28327647
Better than thou

>>28327871
Come at me

>>28314482
Just shooting from the hip, but tell me if I'm wrong.

M14
Garand
FAL
MAS52 (or something)
G3

(patterns of rifle, I'm sure I'm wrong with the model)

File: grapes.jpg (692KB, 1024x762px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 1024x762px

>>28316120
>I just picked up my own Norc M14 (not M305) in a USGI walnut stock (for $300)

I hate you. It's probably a piece of shit anyway.

Depending on where you live it can actually be something of a pain in the fucking ass to actually shoot a high powered rifle. I'm in the city and can at best get out only a few times a year and when I do I'd either have to schedule time at a range 45 minutes a way on the free day when non members could come, get a membership (not likely because I just don't shoot enough to justify it), drive an hour and 20 minutes or so to the quarry where I can shoot for free, or 45 minutes to the open ranges limited to 100 yards. The only places I can shoot further than 100 yards is the range that requires a membership or god knows where but further than an hour and 20 minutes out. And even if the closer place is 45 minutes out that's still a decent amount of time...not something you can generally just up and do if you have other obligations. Easier if you have shooting buddies but really it gets old.


Then you have ammo cost. 35 cents a round doesn't sound like much but 1) You'd be buying in bulk, 2) it's not the best ammo, and 3) 35 cents is still not cheap, its $3.50 to $7 a magazine. If you reload already then you can negate this entire part. If not then it's something you need to think about. And if you think about reloading that in itself is an entire hobby that requires a decent initial investment.

So if you're not looking to collect, don't live out in the sticks or somewhere you can shoot a bit really easy I'd say the AR. You can collect uppers like 22 and 9mm to shoot very cheap and even in pistol ranges if you have some very close by. The 5.56 still has the issue of just realizing its minimum potential at 100 yards but it's not as bad as a 308 or 30-06 where those ranges are just a waste (unless you're hunting or something). Cheap plinking ammo in 5.56 is cheaper than cheap plinking ammo in 308 or 30-06.

AR all the way. M1A if you want to collect, hunt, live where you can easily shoot it, reload.

All I want is a plain Jane M1A, but every lgs and pawn shop has the chrome barrel bedded stock bullshit.

>>28331799
Order one online and ship it to your favorite FFL.

>>28327188
>>28322835
for the price of a fulton, I might as well just save a bit more and get a SCAR17

I wonder how many people voicing their opinions here actually own one. I have a loaded M1A and it's a tack driver. Bassett scope mount-holds zero perfectly. It's basically a garand action and yet garand never gets any shit, and M14 is an improved garand in all respects.
OP if you're still here, my opinion is that it is an excellent rifle, for those who can afford it. No practical difference between cast and milled receivers in this case, although I know that poorfags who never shot or owned one will vehemently disagreee, but what do I give a shit

>>28314457

I have an M1A /k/omrade, It's fun, I mean a lot of fun, it's also boring, because you can zero and hit steel at 300 yds in about 5 minutes.

Iron sights have held their zero pretty well, so that's kind of a meme thing.

Mounting a scope and holding zero is a whole nother prospect, considering it was never built with the DMR role in mind.

If you want an iron sight only battle rifle, do it, if you want a more precision piece, go for AR-10 or similar.

>>28314852

Dank u 4 ur cervix!!!!! :DDD

>>28321853
Maybe you should try different loads

>>28314520
Under 100m, the M1A will shoot very similar to an SKS provided the shooter has great eyesight and trigger control. If the latter two aren't true, the M1A's greater sight radius, more user-friendly aperture sights and generallysmoother trigger will provide marginally better results.

M1A's are a ton of fun, but not thr ost accurate of rifles. An out if the box AR10 will shoot circles around it.

File: 1420179750874.jpg (8KB, 316x371px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 316x371px

>>28333789
>speculation

Why do you type this shit? Are you stupid or trolling?

>>28333985
Given that neither firearm produces sub MIA groups out of the box, if one shoots 3 inches and the other around four, the average shooter can't tell the difference with irons.

Thus, for an inexperienced / amateur shooter, the only practical differences between the two, are recoil, ammo price and cost of ownership.

>>28334520

>more speculation

Out of the box, the average m14 will out shoot the average sks by a huge margin.

I'm going to guess you have an SKS and never shot a m14/m1a.

>>28334619
>Out of the box, the average m14 will
Shoot about 3 MOA. This is the accepted standard known far and wide. Not even him.

>>28334619

Out of the box, the M1A is a 2-3 MOA gun with milsurp ammo. That is perfectly comparable to an SKS.

>>28334636
Difference is you can swap out 2 or 3 parts on an M1A and make it a sub-MOA rifle. The same can't be said of the SKS.

>>28334720
> you can swap out 2 or 3 parts on an M1A and make it a sub-MOA rifle.
Like the barrel and trigger? You're also looking at bedding the stock, keeping it in tune, and upgrading to match ammo/handloads. That's not exactly "out of the box" anymore, either.

>>28334778
I think it was the op rod and something else. I'd link the video, but my phone won't let me. It's the first result under "sub moa M1A" on YouTube.

>>28334636
>>28334630

Next time your have a chance, shoot an SKS, shoot 10 rounds in 30 seconds, reload and do a 5 round group. Don't let the gun cool first.

Do the same with a m1a. It won't be the same performance.

>>28315992
By the time the M14 was in adoption trials it was well understood what a good battle rifle or assault rifle should look like. US Ordnance deliberately chose to ignore everything in favor of a product improved Garand.

Everyone at the time knew that either the AR10 was clearly a superior design to everything else at trials, if given enough development time to resolve all the issues.

>>28334845
Both rifles fall within the range of 3 MOA. This is proven fact. I'm sorry.

>>28334942

Proven where?

Exactly my thoughts. I live in the woods for real and am very glad I own one. Its supposed to be something you aim at an actual target and actually hit rather than spray everywhere for fire suppression. Some people don't get that

>>28335984
>It's an attempt to prolong the lifespan of a heavy WWII autoloader with not a whole lot of inherent accuracy potential and a very open action with reliability issues by tacking a box mag onto it

FTFY
It's a rifle for the people with a hard on for the 50's. I'll admit it's sexy as fuck, but it was outdated the day it was adopted.

File: IMAG0028.jpg (1MB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2688x1520px

I love mine. Get a lot of flack from people for what ever reason untill they shoot it. It's a joy to shoot. It's very accurate ( sub moa in the sage chassis) it all comes down to preference and what you like. And I happen to like mine very much. If you want to bash them come shoot mine and you will enjoy it.

>>28335028
>How is it proven a stock M14 is capable of around 3 MOA
Was this your first rifle or do you somehow think a slightly modded M1, which itself is knowingly capable of around 3 MOA, would receive a significant accuracy boost for magical reason?

>>28328126
> not liking the grain
> it's not actually the pressure spike causing things to fuck up.
> me being this autistic...

>>28329218

did you spraypaint the handguard? what the hell m8

>>28336073
Why would people hate on that. I think it's nice, it just makes me really jealous.

File: 1337236675847.jpg (110KB, 1010x1036px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1010x1036px

>>28336073
>taking pics against direct sunlight

>>28336679
Maybe it's JJ Abrams's rifle.

>>28336073
You know what's funny, I used to get that a lot when I had a Mini-14. People would openly sneer and shit talk it on the range but I'd just grin and hand em a loaded magazine (because I used to run steel case when it was 20cpr or so). After 10 rounds they'd usually ask for more.

That Garand action is just good to shoot. People often naturally like it. Not always, but it does make up for some of the practical shortcomings.

>>28328048
Good ole H20Man, that guy is the Mike Sparks of the M-14.

Though I do love his M14 porn

>>28336679
I thought this was a gun thread not a photography thread

File: shrug.gif (491KB, 500x229px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 500x229px

>>28331781
To be honest I'm not fond of the USGI stock...

That M14E2 stock though. Gawdamn!
I'm chatting with a guy who's got one to unload.

>>28336646
It is nice. Thank you. I'm pretty proud of it actually. It's fun is pretty and there aren't many out there like it.

>>28331712
Mas 49/56

>>28327478
>It's not as accurate as its competitors
Better than a FAL or G3 if it's not built like shit

>it's heavy
Lighter than a FAL or some other .308 rifles

>it's rather expensive
True, because the receiver and bolt are machining nightmares. But It's not THAT much more expensive. Cheap FAL/G3 in the US is $700-1000. Cheap M14 is $1000-1200.

>>28328126
>Too bad the op rod doesnt like 175s or even 168s
Are you confusing the M14 with the M1 Garand? The M14 gas system is mostly self-regulating.

>>28333619

It's a sign of been on /k/ too long I thought about saying this to my girlfriend tomorrow.

>>28338899
No.
On the garand, its much worse.
M14s still get bent op rods, heavy ammo makes this happen more often. My understanding is with the garand it happens moreso with what we consider today to be full power '06, rather than just with heavier bullets.

>>28314457
Nothing patriotic about a Chink M1A. That's just ironic and sad to the point of being practically subversive.

>>28334778
>Like the barrel and trigger?

Am I the only one here who actually owns an M1A? If you're accurizing the gun you don't replace the barrel and trigger unless there's something wrong with the stock guns. Most upgrades are unitize the gas cylinder the bed the stock.

Without those mods it still will usually only lose out to AR10s and bolt guns.

>>28336094

Anybody can take an sks and do the test suggested: >>28334845.

You can say its "proven", the sks and m14 shoot the same, the simple test will prove you wrong.

I'm torn between getting an m14 or a c308. C308 obviously beino more price friendly, but Im seeing a lot of mixed reviews about the rifle performance after a couple hundred round. Which would be a better battle rifle for a entry level gun owner?

>>28339016
not even him but how is it not common knowledge that a stock M-14 usually shoots at 3 moa? it's a battle rifle, not a DMR.

>>28338972
I always got confused on this, with the 30-06 isnt their a saami spec that limits how much pressure a round can produce? If so the garand should have been designed to handle that max pressure no matter whether it was made in the 40's or today

>>28314457

god i hate clinton for banning norchinko imports, that's the only good thing about being a canuck.

>>28339448
The US military has never actually followed either SAAMI or CIP specs though, and the Garand was built to US military specs.

Also, the SAAMI spec for .30-06 has shifted quite a good bit since 1906. Ammunition actually loaded to 1906 specs (or, god forbid, .30-03 specs) are cold enough to not cycle a Garand, and modern SAAMI-spec .30-06 bends op rods.

>>28339277
Guess I got lucky. I was an SDM in Iraq and got a straight-out-of-strawfilled-crate M14 produced in the early 60's, and with M80 ball it was a 2.5MOA rifle. Once I finally got some M118LR it shot about 1.5-1.6MOA. And that was with the terribad GI trigger in a 50 year old gun.

>>28339488
Well this just shows the baseless arguement that the rifle is inaccurate. How did you like the rifle?

File: 2011-11-08_15-28-38_195.jpg (1006KB, 1456x2592px) Image search: [Google]

1006KB, 1456x2592px

I'm hard pressed to find literally anything else in my collection that I enjoy shooting more than my M1A. I've set up plates at around 750 yards on the farm and love raining .308 down on them all day long.

>>28339589
I fucking hated it, but not because it shot poorly.

Thing's heavy yo. Going from an M4 to an M14+M9 fucking sucked.

As to the rifle itself, well. Keep in mine my rifle was new-in-crate, never issued, early-wartime production (Vietnam advisory time period).

The trigger sucked, but that was to be expected in a non-precision-oriented battle rifle from before Vietnam. It was completely uncontrollable on auto (yes mine had a giggle switch, I used it once and didn't hit shit) and would burn through a 20 round mag in no time flat, also to be expected in a USGI battle rifle. It heated up something awful, but that didn't seem to hurt accuracy a noticeable amount. I spent half the deployment with delinked M80 ball, which is pretty much the last thing you want to shoot through one, but the only misses I had in combat were my fault not the rifle's, and at ranges I'd have hit/missed anyway with a 4MOA rifle (I was innacity in Mosul, not exactly long range shooting). I love the balance of the USGI wood stock. I was offered the Sage EBR chassis, and turned it down since I didn't have a bipod/VFG to mount anyway and it makes the rifle heavier and extremely front-heavy. It handles like a hunting rifle, not a fighting rifle, but since I grew up hunting I took to it like a duck to water and shot it extremely well.

>well this just shows the baseless argument the rifle is inaccurate
Keep in mind I had a true M14. Civilian M1A's are not the same rifle, my experience is only anecdotal off a single rifle unobtainable by (the overwhelming majority of) civilians.

>>28339683
True, I don't think that an M1a is of the same quality but it is no where near the slavshit teir that others claim.

>>28339762

They're not bad shooters but the quality of some of the parts in new ones is questionable compared to the older ones. Every small part on the gun will probably be cast or MIM, and the barrel will be nice but with a tight civilian chamber.

Older M1As had surplus GI barrels and 80-100% of the small parts would be original GI contract.

>>28339840
I really wanted an old one but regardless I'm pleased with my loaded m1a. I would expect a match barrel to have a tighter chamber.

>>28339868

The tight chamber is great for match shooting but not for someone who runs battle packs of surplus 7.62 through it. Sometimes you get feeding/extracting problems.

FYI: If you ever see an M1A with Garand lockbar sights, take a close look at it. It's probably from the period around 1990 when they had their largest stock of GI parts.

>>28339762
I think the issue here is not you overestimating the M1A but underestimating the SKS. As others have said, it's a 3 MOA rifle. If that's what a fresh out of the box M1A is typically capable of, then yes, they are comparable in performance. That may trigger you, but them's the breaks.

>>>/b/659811127

Yo guys gotta hurry and get in !!!

File: M5966_110924_T-1.jpg (43KB, 639x494px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 639x494px

>>28340076
Forgot pic

>>28340076
Sure it can be capable of good accuracy just as any rifle is. But I would be willing to bet that finding a cherry m1a is more likely than an sks.

>>28336073
>sub moa in the sage chassis

hah

>>28340236
Whether that may or may not be the case is a bit irrelevant considering the original discussion topic was whether typical factory configuration M1As were comparable to typical factory configuration SKSs in terms of accuracy.

>>28340136
>3 MOA rifle
>posts a ~6MOA group
you wot m8?

I suppose you're not counting the 5th hole 3+ inches down and right and are going off the 4 round group aren't you?

>>28340314
I could post more groupings if that would satisfy you. Give me a bit.

File: sks_2inchgrp.jpg (23KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x480px

>>28340330

So question for everyone here. If money was of no concern, would you get a M1A or a FN SCAR 17? I'm looking for a .308 rifle to round out my set and don't know whether to get an M1A or the FN SCAR 17.

>>28340263
There are more factory configurations of m1a I'm sure my factory m1a in the loaded configuration has a better than average chance of beating out the run of the mill sks. Not to mention the factory national match configuration

File: test0101-1.jpg (54KB, 800x379px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 800x379px

>>28340348

>>28340385
Handsome rifle regardless

File: Ammo00811-1.jpg (62KB, 798x442px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 798x442px

>>28340385

>>28340348
>>28340401
Okay those are pretty impressive.

I know the first one was labeled as Golden Tiger, what were the other three as far as ammo?

>>28315081

>what is in range TV for 500 Alex?

Check out their m14 reliability test, it shits the bed big time.

>>28328126

Bullshit. Complete bullshit. The m14 gas system is self regulating. I think you're thinking of the garand.

>>28340585
He must be the only thing that should be avoided is slow burning powers, semi autos can be damaged by really slow burning match ammunition.

>>28340493
>ignores that it's battle proven
>muh Utoob videoz

>>28340493

Every open top gun does that, including a lot of bolt guns. It's not specifically an M14 problem, it's a problem of being older than anything else people still consider SHTF guns.

>>28340493
I'm gonna take this moment to point something out:

--Other than not pinging or bending oprods, the M14 is the same goddamn rifle as the M1 Garand. I've owned both. Near every part works the same way or is less complicated.

-Tactical Jesus tested a genuine GI Garand LESS thoroughly than a civilian M14 clone in a civilian stock, and the Garand jammed WORSE. Troops in WW2 had trouble with them filling up with dirt the same way.

-/k/ still says the Garand is still the greatest battle implement ever devised yet everyone gets shit for owning an M14 clone.

I mean, really. Yes it's dated and the US had no right to adopt the thing after WW2, but in service it was reliable enough that troops preferred them in combat to the pre-A1 AR variants. There are better alternatives nowadays but they're not bad weapons.

>>28340648
>battle proven
You literally have no idea what it takes for a rifle to go from concept to prototype to gov't issue.

>>28340257
Don't believe me come shot it. I live in sw Ohio. I consistently get 3/4 to 1 moa with 168gr smk from a bench with a swfa ss fixed 10x. And even if it wasn't it's still a blast to shoot.

>>28340354
Depends on what you want it for. Imho they are both fun of money is no object get both

File: Mark-Whalburg-Style.jpg (193KB, 676x902px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 676x902px

>>28340348
>>28340385
>>28340401

100 round group fastfire with a piston AR-15.

Accuracy on almost any gun is irrelevant at 100 yards.

The M1A will reach out to 600 and hold the same MOA it holds at 100. That's the selling point.

Your SKS will not perform at 200 and past 200 it will be severely neutered.

>>28346405
MOA is constant, it doesnt vary by distance

File: ayy.jpg (275KB, 676x902px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 676x902px

>>28346405

Should mention I was using a fucking POSP scope.

hell I can hold 10 MOA at 100 yards with a fucking XDM-45.

The difference is there's no kinetic energy left, and the bullet is not on a straight trajectory.

No one buys an M1A to target shoot at a sand pit. And anyone who buys an M1A (and not just your bottom of the barrel BudsGunShop special) knows damn well that it's not the most practical thing.

The point is it's very nice to look at and very nice to shoot. I've owned and shot plenty of SKS and you know what I don't own anymore? I'll give you one guess. and it's not the M1A.

>>28346414

Yeah I think you misunderstood me. My point is if your M1A is hitting 3'' groups at 100 yards you'll still hold 18'' groups at 600 yards. Hence, it will "hold the same MOA".

Of course the M1A is more than capable of sub 3 MOA at 600 yards.

>>28340076
The minimum accepted specs allowed for no less than 3moa accuracy. That doesn't mean they all shoot 3moa. Most will shoot better. There's no penalty for exceeding specs when vending a product.

File: 1444604955973.png (201KB, 528x498px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 528x498px

>>28338979
ok...if you say so.

>>28336679

>>>/p/

>>28314457
id buy one for about half the price. its not particularly accurate or particularly light for a battle rifle and there are better rifles for the same price or rifles that perform similarly for much cheaper.

>>28340648
>every gun is perfect if its adopted.
Chauchat. INSAS. You're a dipshit.

>>28343612
>consistently

so that's one 3-shot group out of 20 per outing then?

>>28347858
How much do SA go for?

>>28336073
Fuck i know this post is a day old but i really want to throw my m1a into a ebr chassy. im confused whats different with the EMR/EBR apparently theres a barrel tension nut on one? and the other doesnt have it? and it greatly helps accuracy? anyone happen to know

File: sag_ebr_stock_m1garand.jpg (100KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 700x500px

>>28351956

>>28334908
>if given enough development time
The FAL changes since the trial to the one you know now
1. Extractor changed to two piece because it would rip off cartridge rims
2. Bolt was lightened to give it less mass so that the gas system would cycle properly in adverse conditions
3. The take down and other controls changed
4. Magazine changed three times
Any rifle requires time and development. At the time it was in trials the FAL was not as good as the M14. It became better later, and the M14 has also changed. Now most people use the M14 as an EBR, with some nations using a bullpup version.