Is there any reason why I shouldn't purchase this rifle?

File: AA9611PK_2.jpg (744KB, 2250x938px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 2250x938px

>>32719405
'Cause I'm probably going to pick this one up with the optic.

>>32719405
If you want a reliable rifle, you shouldnt buy it

>>32719413
I was awaiting this kind of post, but why do you say that?

>>32719405
>springfield
Also, that looks gay as fuck. The only good that comes from an M14 action is being stuck in an M14.

>>32719428
Short gas action is finicky, also Springfield

>>32719405
It's an M14

It's a Springfield

>>32719405
Because its objectively the worst of the main battle rifles and outclassed by the AR-15 in a cqb role, while being much more expensive. If that doesnt bother you, go for it.

>>32719428
Do you not see the exposed bearing surface for the oprod? What do you think happens when dirt gets in there?

>>32719431
I think it looks fine. Looks are irrelevant. I'm talking about quality of the firearm. If it's shitty, give me example and such. I understand what a magical place I am in, but I would like something solid to support a critical (or positive) opinion.

Isn't the M14 basically a full auto sniper rifle? Who wouldn't want that?

>>32719480
Ok.
>springfield
>short stroke m1a
>springfield
>lightweight stock means front heavy as a fucker
>Oh, in case I forgot to mention, Springfield

>>32719511
These guns are not select fire and are not particularly accurate out of the box.

>>32719511
Except its awful on full auto, and waaaaay to delicate for a sniper rifle.

its a COD meme gun

>>32719405
No experience myself, but a gunsmith I know loves his.

>>32719587
>Because it brings him so much work

>>32719587
Because every 10 rounds he gets, has, to work on it.

>>32719405

Dear lord is that ugly, and I have seen and helped make a bunch of ugly M-14's.

That in a VN era plastic stock, would at least not look like a fat lady with no thighs on rollerskates.

Ideal way to enjoy an M14gery is with a USGI wood or fiberglass stock, open sights, at least an 18" barrel with the normal self adjusting gas system and some CMI mags. That's it. It was a modified M1 that fit the 50s battle rifle role pretty well but failed when pushed into just about any other role.

They are great fun to shoot. Mine have been very accurate even offhand and reliable with a wide variety of ammunition even in somewhat adverse circumstances. I haven't gone shovelling sand into the op rod or swimming in mud but it has been in desert, dust and snow with no major issues.

>>32719405
Why not get a full sized M1A?

if you want something short might as well get an actual SBR

>>32719518
Does the H-SCAR have equivalent or greater accuracy than the M14, assuming an equivalent length barrel? Yes or no.

>>32719664

It looks great. So fucking tactical.

>>32719999
Yes. Better.

File: giadas special sauce.jpg (22KB, 560x200px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 560x200px

>COD meme gun
dropped

>>32720038
Bullshit. That's not possible. The M14 is a DMR, while the H SCAR is a battle rifle.

>>32720362
The m14 is a battle rifle. The scar is even more of a failure than the m14
Prove me wrong
>you cant

File: America localises GATE.webm (3MB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x576px

>>32720495
Neither rifles are failures, as both have been used extensively by navy seals.

Consider your point proven wrong.

>>32719999
Yes by a country mile.

>>32719999
You don't have to monkey fuck the Scar to get it to shoot accurately, and it doesn't go out of adjustment like the M14. Free floated, optic mounts, NV friendly, adjustable gas, etc, etc. Also doesn't weigh a fuck ton like the EBR.

>>32720738
Please tell me what unit uses the scar still
>chirping
The m14 has a long history before seals

>>32720903
Naval special warfare? Used by all branches of Socom? Army rangers? I dunno.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR

File: m25.jpg (21KB, 831x347px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 831x347px

meh, it's a springfield. if you're going the M1A/M14 route, I'd go custom and grab an LRB (that's what I'm doing at the moment)

File: 47HgWf4.jpg (515KB, 1836x2448px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1836x2448px

>>32720935
Please link me a real source, fuck ill just take a recent picture of an operator operating with a scar... 2014 and below need not apply...
>pic related

>>32719405
G3 and FAL pattern rifles are better for combat (more reliable, better handling, etc.). AR-10's are better range queens (far more accurate per cost). The SCAR-H is probably the best all-round, though IMO not enough to justify its price. The only thing the M14 does better than other battle rifles is appeal to fudds who still think that that M16 is a passing fad.

Fuck, if you want one just because "fuck you, I like it" (which I totally understand - I carry a fucking P38), at least go full autist and buy one set up in USGI configuration.

File: 15555217_10154116010135095_1607930018_o.jpg (235KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 2048x1536px

>buying an overpriced castrated M14
>not buying pic related
>not becoming a man among men

laughingrhodesians.jpg

>>32719471
Whoever wrote this is severely retarded, pretty much the whole point of putting the M1A in a sage chassis is to facilitate a scope. With the rail on top all he would need to do is put the scope in rings or even a qd mount.

>>32721029

Fat fuck.

>>32720975
>TFW went for the springfield meme
>Somehow got a decent price on a new Loaded in a wood stock through my LGS
I'm gonna shoot the fucking barrel out of this thing, then get a barreled action from LRB or Fulton and call it an heirloom.

File: 20170119_164402.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>32721462
>not having them all

>>32719405
>We'll put the M16 stock on E V E R Y T H I N G

>>32721726
>A fucking FA91
>"All of them"

>>32719405
Buy an AR10 if you want accuracy and a G3 or FAL if you want a battle rifle.
The M14 was the shortest lived service rifle for a reason (well a lot of reasons).

Quit being a faggot with a neutered tacticool version of a rifle that sucked in the first place.

>>32720362

>the role something is used in automatically dictates its characteristics, not its actual physical and mechanical strengths and limitations.

no, that's no-gunz tier logic

>>32721711
nice. I ordered my LRB a few weeks ago, they're currently waiting on my 22" Krieger SS to show up before continuing. I grabbed a JAE in coyote brown right before the end of their christmas special for 250 off and shipped it up to them. my rifle will basically be like in >>32720975 but I'm putting an atlas on it since I really like the one I already have on my Surgeon and I'm throwing a 3-18 Vortex Razor on top. hoping they finish up the build in the next 3 or 4 weeks.

>>32721741
400 for an hk 91 parts kit that i can shoot? Come on bro

>>32721823
I feel bad for mine, despite being
>Springfield
It shoots Gold Medal Match into a 1" group at 50 yards with irons, and i'm fucking garbage with irons.

>>32721726
>no SCAR
>no m76
>no m77
>no VEPR
>no SVT
>no bm59
Get it together, senpai

File: best.jpg (79KB, 640x493px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 640x493px

>>32719405
>Is there any reason why I shouldn't purchase this rifle?
because you can get a better rifle for less money (pic related)

File: 1467086889265.gif (1MB, 286x152px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 286x152px

>>32720038
I don't like you so I looked around. FN says it's SCAR H will have an MOA of 1.5 at 600m. The M14EBR is held to that standard as its maximum MOA, with the average MOA being 0.79 at 600m.

It seems that the M14 is more accurate than the SCAR-H, or they're the same.

I feel like this thread pops up once a week.
That being said I own a Socom 16. It is a good rifle. I have put over 3000 rounds through mine and it still runs flawlessly. The only problem i have ever had was running cheap indian surplus ammo once, never again, and using cheap mags. I have dumped over 100 rounds in fairly short order with no problems.
Using quality mags and good ammo my rifle does not have any stopage issues. Only strange thing i have ran into is that it ejects brass in a way that hits the charge handle. It doesnt effect the function but it does fuck the finish up quite well.
As to accuracy look somewhere else. You can still mow down someone at 100-200 yards but you are not shooting tin cans at 600 with it.
If i had to do it over again i would probably get an AR-10 but they were not as popular when i bought my m1a.
The only category the socom is really great for is tight spaces where you would want a .308. In my mind it would be shooting from a vehicle or needing to penetrate semi hard cover in a cqb situation.
That being said it is a really niche rifle but still very fun.

>>32724176
Wow good job taking a battle rifle and comparing its precision to a prepared rifle.

>>32722599
is this famas?

>>32724701
Actually, I accidently used the stats of the SCAR precision rifle variant on FN's website. The thing looks like an urban sniper rifle. The actual SCAR H is probably a lot less accurate than 1.5 MOA at 600m.

And you're right, I did do good by realising that a SCAR H would not out shoot an M14.

>>32725077
Oh did you? I'm not surprised you don't know what MOA is, either.
"Based on the FN® MK 17, the SSR is capable of sub-minute of angle accuracy out to and beyond 1,000 yards."
https://fnamerica.com/products/rifles/fn-mk20-ssr

>>32719473
>>32719449
Not OP, but isn't the M1A pretty much an upgraded Garand? Wouldn't that mean it was just as reliable in terms of design? Sure in modern day warfare it is outdated to an extent, but it seems some limited uses as a DMR.

So also, what does /k/ think about the M14 EBR?

What's wrong with springfield?

>>32724176
Man i miss cokeman.

>>32725226
>Wouldn't that mean it was just as reliable in terms of design
Yes, but the Garand wasn't reliable, either.

>>32725226
>So also, what does /k/ think about the M14 EBR?

In modern times, waaay to fuckin heavy for shooting 7.62.

Inb4 manlet, lifting, etc.

14lbs before optics is silly.

I hear those tactical ones come with complimentary "LGBT Gun Owners" stickers

>>32725226
>M1A
When will people learn this is a trademark?

>>32719511
>full auto

Hello new friend

>>32725569
M14s are semi automatic only for civilians.

>>32725523
but it's cool as fuck tho

>>32719405
what stock is that op?

>>32725617
m14s are fully auto, M1as are the semi-auto variant, otherwise they are the same weapon

have fun paying $50+ per magazine

>>32726506
M1As are Springfield M14s. That's all an M1A is.

>>32719405
proprietary parts. At the minimum, get the Scout model, which is just a shortened barrel.

But in all honesty, get the M1A Loaded non-stainless for nostalgia or go SCAR17s.