can someone explain to me why people hate the M14/M1A so much?

>>33274266
They are genuinely boring and uninteresting like every other auto loading rifle.

>>33274266
The recievers apparently have problems with stretching (event on Civillian ones) and bedding problems mean you have to settle for meh accuracy or it's got to be a bench rifle (I like taking mine innawoods.)

The Garand had a longer reciever and thus more time to slow down, as well as having a heavier BCG (the piston being part of the weight of the carrier and bolt and stuff)

They shoulda gone with a long stroke piston design like the Garand and it MIGHT have had fewer problems.
The cartridge length seems to be the biggest to me though.

>>33274266
PTR does it better for cheaper.

ARs can do it better for cheaper.

They're unreliable as fuck and the only thing he really having going for them is looks. And at that price when you're buying for looks you might as well get a Rock-ola.

>>33274310
>unrealiable

While >>33274306 is correct that they can lose some accuracy over time at 300+ (its really not much, but I've noticed it) the rifle itself is remarkably reliable. Never had a single failure to fire or even jam and I've put untold amounts of ammo through it. I take pretty shitty care of the thing too.

I enjoy mine and since i live in the people's commune of commiefornia its one of the few uncucked semi-autos i could own

>>33274310
they're only unreliable if you plan to drag your rifle over cobblestone streets and through wet concrete and quicksand
they aren't AK tier but they aren't as awful as everyone makes them to be.

>>33274372
>>33274336
I'm not saying the design is inherently unreliable. I'm saying the current Springfield run is unreliable. There are so many stories floating around of those shitting the bed that it's not hard to figure out why people don't like them.

>>33274451
The 16" have a garbage reputation and there are enough horror stories out there to convince they deserve it. But scout squad and loaded seem to only draw the ire of people who dont own them. I have the SS and I love it and have found almost nobody even online who doesn't feel the same way about theirs.

>>33274487

Scout squad is on my gun bucket list.

>>33274266
Owned one. Shot many.

They are picky with magazines.

They have a harsh recoil impulse compared to other NATO battle rifles.

Their price does not reflect their quality.

They are heavy once modernized with either the troy stock or sage EBR stock systems.

They are a pain in the ass to put glass on and keep their zero.

Honestly if you want a mag fed Garand get a BM59. The BM59 did better than the M14, it's pleasant to shoot, has better aesthetics, the builds out right now cost less than a shit tier Springer M1A, and the para BM59s have way better ergos.

>>33274266
My father in law has one. Its accurate and fun to shoot. It's light but it's not a wooden stock.

9/10 would buy.

>>33274266
I love the m1a, that being said, most of the hate gathered around it is from people trying to make it into something it's not.

People who try to make it a precision rifle get over whelmed with the maintenance, from bedding degradation scope mount wandering, to short case life due to the ejection process.
Unless they enjoy the m1a platform they tend to look at the cost of keeping an m1a precision ready and start looking at upkeep cost other rifles and see the jump.

People who try to make a 3 gun rifle complain about weight, and reliability of the open ( yes there is a hole in the action) in dusty conditions. This coupled with sharp recoil tends to turn off Battle rifle styled 3 gunners.

and lastly, the amount of hype around the rifle from folks leads to an exaggeration on the capabilities of the rifle "out the box".
A notable one is how accurate the m14 platform is, you can ask a lot of "no guns" about the m14 and you'll hear a bunch of them, such as " good to 1200 meters" and such.

This Imo is why there is a strong hate for the m14/m1a

If the M14 is that accurate why is it the basis of some stable semi-auto marksmen rifles?

File: Snapshot_20141019_zps93fa46e2.jpg (34KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x480px

>>33274613
forgot pic.

>>33274635
Because the army spent years trying to make it like that, but ended up dropping it. It's a case of " it's what we've always used". Now that's not to say they are not accurate, but the cost of keeping that accuracy is very high compared to other rifles.

I've always assumed it's because it's something everyone knows and has seen. Same reason people wear flecktarn or other relatively uncommon patterns in the US. They want something different, something that stands out, even if it's not by very much.

>>33274635
A standard M1A shoots about 3.5 MOA. My loaded M1A shoots about 2.5MOA. A national match accurized M1A is about 1.5MOA.

There are lighter, cheaper, more reliable firearms produced in the same era and used by forces on the same side. It only saw use because of fervent American nationalism, and the use it saw was very limited.

File: IMG_0005.jpg (73KB, 480x472px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 480x472px

As NATO batle rifles go, the fal is pretty much better in all regards, exempt price. It's a handsome rifle though.

Unrelated note though, you guys think that the FAL was doomed because the US wouldn't let them use a intermediate cartrige?

>>33274702
No.
It was doomed because they wanted to reuse the Garand tooling and the FAL was "unamerican"

>>33274266
It is the worst battle rifle in every way by at least a marginal amount. the price is on par with objectively better battle rifles and noticeably more expensive than a few others.

If you buy it as a range queen, youll probably like it. Its a beautiful and well known gun. If you try to turn it into anything more specialized than that, youre in for a disappointment.

>>33274266
I had a legit M14 from SEI. Best thing I ever did was sell that hunk of shit. Everyone knows why they're shit so there's no point in stating the same thing repeatedly just to have some fag with his korean cast shitheap springfield he shoots 200rds through once in a blue moon come out and say his experience is somehow relevant.

the only relevant .308s are as follows
>SCAR-H
>417
>SR-25
>XCR-M
>b&t APC 308
>ACE

Everything else will shit the bed at normal round counts. with steel case .308 finally dipping into the sub 40 cent poorfag range I suspect the trash that's floating round (g3/fal/etc) will be outed as unreliable breakage prone garbage soon enough.

>>33274718
I love my M25 go fuck yourself

>>33274719
>he thinks the fal and g3 cant handle steel case
>laughingwhores.jpg

>>33274740
>he's poor and can't read
t. Trayvon

>>33274719
What.
Nobody's had any significant problems with any of those guns except century built pieces of shit.

Also,
>B&T
>the Galil ACE
>any HK rifle made post '80
>any rifle with X in its name
>relevant
>ever

>>33274732
>fudd tears from touching the upper hand guard intensify

>>33274750
>with steel case .308 finally dipping into the sub 40 cent poorfag range I suspect the trash that's floating round (g3/fal/etc) will be outed as unreliable breakage prone garbage soon enough
What part of that isnt claiming those rifles cant handle steel case?

>>33274761
cant actually touch the handguard with the mk 4 and a sun shade mounted

>>33274613
>people trying to make it into something it's not
If it's unsuited to precision shooting and a poor choice for action shooting, then what is it good for, besides Black Hawk Down cosplay and causing "It Ain't Me" to start playing?

>>33274266
The M1A is a remarkably good all around rifle for its age, and it actually gets hated because of that.
>just accurate enough to piss off the precision rifle nerds and wannabe snoipahs
>just good enough at hunting to piss off the fudds
>just heavy enough (in M1A scout squad configuration) to piss off the scout rifle fanboys and "muh ounces = pounds" high speed low drag tactiqueers
>just good enough as a battle rifle to make Garand, SVT, G3/PTR, FAL, and AR (both 10 and 15) fanboys insecure

>>33274778
Then setting it down moderately heavily. Theyre known for being unnecessarily difficult to keep accurized.

>>33274895
100 yard nail driving with no optic installed. if you're a good enough shot that you dont need glass at that range (you'd be surprised how many cant do it) you'll like if not love it.

But people buy it to be MUH ELITE SNIPER RIFLE and well...they get what they deserve. Others try and make it into some CQR memefest, and to be fair SA do themselves no favors on that front with the 16" models which seem to put all sorts of unrealistic ideas in peoples heads (also they dont work).

To me it is good enough at what it does to be worth the price.

>>33274950
What.
>just accurate enough
Only as a national match version do you get groups that are better than any of the other BRs generally posted here
>just good enough at hunting
If I was a fudd I'd be pissed a machine grew legs and hunted better than me too
>just heavy enough to piss off tacticool faggots
Yeah but if it wasn't then they'd find another reason to hate it
>just good enough as a BR to make anyone else with a BR insecure
So you're telling me everyone here is insecure about a battle rifle being a battle rifle, just that it's the same price for either the same or less in terms of features and with tons of reports of problems with manufacturing?

Anon, I sincerely hope you actually understand what you're saying.

>>33275024
its also legal everywhere in the USA while the FAL is banned in a lot of places, which shouldn't matter but it does.

>>33275024
>100 yard nail driving with no optic installed.
That's every rifle, though, not to mention some shotguns.

>>33275056
Well not rifle is semi auto, and not all semi autos arrive at their 100 yard targets with the kind of force it delivers, and the ones that do tend to cost a shitload more money than the M1A

>>33275076
Literally any .308 or similar caliber semi auto does exactly what youre describing

Anyone have any experience with S&W m&p 10? I've been seriously thinking about buying that for my .308 shooting pleasures. On line reviews are all positive

>>33274266
it should have been in .30-06

>>33275432
This.
I've got the big boy garand. If I want a detachable mag I'll just get a BM59.

>>33274997
I use a solid one piece gas system and aluminum bedding compound. It's been great

>>33274266
I don't hate it, it is just boring to me. I have shot many garands in my life so I tend to lean towards g3 or fal's.

For the price I would just buy a garand and be decent at reloading the en-block clip

>>33275054
>its also legal everywhere in the USA
banned in more states than the AR-10, PTR, and FAL
it's even banned in Maryland WHERE THEY'RE MADE
>>33275076
>>33275024
Every single one of the M14/M1As competitors does everything better. It never should have existed. We should have gone with the BM59 or FAL.

>>33275432
Nah, it really, really, shouldn't have been.

It shouldn't have been in .308 either, the army should have ditched 30cal for .270.

>>33274336
Current generation Springfields have a tendency to be unreliable due to dumb designs on their 16" and 18" guns and overall poor QC.

The design as a whole doesn't tolerate grit at all, and the wide-open action gathers a lot of it. For a range or hunting gun it isn't really an issue though. And they're also picky with mags and to a point ammo as far as feeding (they don't like heavy softpoints, they're blunt enough they hang up or stovepipe out of the magazine).

>>33274523
Not to mention both the Troy and Sage stocks move the balance point so far forward they're difficult to shoot offhand even without any accessories on them.

>>33274895
They have excellent iron sights and tend to be accurate enough for the various iron sight competitions. They're a decent hunting gun if you want to hunt with a semi (a lot of people around me use things like the Scout Squad for feral hogs) as well.

They make a pretty poor combat gun and they make a dogshit bad precision gun, and the only reason the military uses them as such is because they already have them.

>>33274635
Because the military had a bunch of them on hand already and turning them into an accurate-enough DMR was cheaper and faster than buying a bunch of M110's, especially considering KAC's glacial production rate.

Then civilians who are stupid went "well the military uses it so it must be good" like they did with m855.

>>33275860
Why? .277 generally has significantly worse BC's at similar lengths while being close enough in weight to generate similar recoil from similar-powder-capacity cartridges.

Case in point, the kinetic energy generated by 150gr .30-06 is only about 1 FPE more than the kinetic energy generated by 140gr .270win, while having a longer supersonic range and an overall flatter trajectory because of the significantly higher BC.

Second case in point, 6.8SPC. Despite a 22% higher case capacity than 6.5 grendel it shoots a marginally lighter bullet only about 150fps/4% faster, and generates more recoil in doing so while exhibiting more barrel and bolt wear. Or if you wish to compare it to a .30cal intermediate round, it has nearly 30% more case capacity than 7.62x40WT while driving a same-weight bullet only 200fps faster for more than twice the same generated recoil energy and a 280yd shorter supersonic range because of the shit BC of light .277 bullets.

File: 10802790_744831752271704_1014601498_n.jpg (25KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x480px

>>33275432
>>33275860
They should have chambered it in .308×1.5" Barnes so they could have their "muh marksmanship" and "muh .30 cal stoppin' powah" cake and eat it, too.

>>33274306
This. The US should have done what the Italians did. Redo their Garands into proper battlerifles like the BM-59 instead of completely redesign a new rifle.

>>33276071
>m-14 invented in 1959
>.308x1.5 Barnes invented in 1961 with the first viable prototype round produced in 1963
Yeah sure they should've.

>>33274523
Can't find a fault with this.
Add in that their safety is inside the trigger guard, always bad in any config.

>>33276127
A timeline where they skip straight from .300 Savage to .308×1.5" Barnes or equivalent is plausible enough.
The biggest problem would be the Ordnance Corps fossils who couldn't into the entire assault rifle concept.
Our hypothetical assault rifle M14 would probably need to be snuck in under their noses as a carbine or SMG, much like the StG 44 was.

>>33276264
Well if we're gonna play with what-ifs and alt-universes, I'll take an M14 invented in 1914 chambered in the then-experimental .250-3000 Savage or a 6mm wildcat (6XC) thereof.

>>33276056
>generate similar recoil
kek, stop posting.

>.277 generally has significantly worse BC's at similar lengths
The exact opposite is true.

>Case in point, the kinetic energy generated by 150gr .30-06 is only about 1 FPE more than the kinetic energy generated by 140gr .270win
BC has fuck-all to do with muzzle energy, and everything to do with bullet design. A .277 bullet of the same length as a comparable .308 bullet will NOT encounter more air resistance, it will encounter less.

You've most likely been looking at a comparison between a .277 hunting bullet, and some .308 military bullet.

>>33274266
Seeing as I'm a 20 year old unemployed college student, no shit im a "turbo poorfag". Because not everyone is swimming in money like you, faggot.

>>33276320
>an M14 invented in 1914
Gross; have you seen what mag-fed semi-autos from back then are like? There's a reason that self-loading rifles didn't catch on until decades later, and it's not just because the war ended too soon.

>>33276363
No, you're the fucking retard here.

BC is primarily a factor of bullet length, with a secondary role in bullet shape. There's a reason why something like a 220gr roundnose .30cal bullet still has a good BC but a super pointy 125gr .30cal bullet does not.

If you wish to make direct comparisons, the 135gr .277" SMK is the same length as the 168gr .308" SMK. Yet it has a G1 BC of 0.482 @ 2800fps vs. a G1 BC of .494 @ 2800fps for the 168gr SMK.

Yes, a .277" bullet of the same WEIGHT as a .308" bullet will have a higher BC, but it will be significantly longer. Which matters, a LOT, in mag-fed rifles.

If you want direct comparisons on total recoil generated and free recoil between any two calibers, chuck hawks has a chart with about 120 different calibers all fired through an exactly-8-pound single shot test rifle and there's a total recoil calculator available at http://www.shooterscalculator.com/recoil-calculator.php

File: M1911A1.png (1MB, 1530x958px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1530x958px

>>33276441
>have you seen what mag-fed semi-autos from back then are like?
Yeah I know, right?

>>33276441
I meant that as long as we're doing alt-timelines and handwavium alternate universes, I meant the m14 exactly as it existed in 1958 but invented in 1914 and chambered in a round not invented until 2007 but based on a round prototyped in 1914.

File: 1307210917.jpg (11KB, 700x145px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 700x145px

>>33276455
>talking about rifles
>posts a handgun

File: iraq bunker.jpg (36KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x375px

>>33274266
I noticed alot of hate for the M14 after Forgotten Weapons did the mud and sand test with it. In most peoples cases who fucking cares. Yes the M14 doesnt like mud or sand, no shit its an open action. 99% of people who shoot Battle rifles go to a range to plink. I love the M14 still, I dont care what people say. I have shot PTRs, FALs a SCAR and alot of M14s and the M14 just feels the best for me. One thing I notice tho is that Forged guns vs Cast guns are two different ball games. I dont know what it is but every Cast gun (3 Springfields and a Federal Armory) I have shot has just felt really gritty. But the Rock-Ola and LRB rifles I shot were smooth as butter. And another thing, M14s feed steel just fine I dont know what people are talking about when they say they dont

>>33276460
>I meant the m14 exactly as it existed in 1958 but invented in 1914
Why not just go for a phased-plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, at that point?
It's not like they had the manufacturing technology necessary for that in 1914, either.

>>33275432
>The Garand should have been in .276 Pederson like John Garand intended. And after that the AR-10 should have been adopted.

FTFY

>>33274266
>more like you're weak. git gud
or its heavy compared to literally any other battle rifle
>you have to a turbo poorfag for .308 to be too pricey for you.
or shoot a couple thousand rounds in a weekend and in 308 that does get pricey
>which isn't really relevant to you and your "whoa there $1600 is too expensive for me" bullshit.
only paid $600 for rifle scope and mount

File: image.jpg (37KB, 532x582px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 532x582px

>>33277241
>imagining a .276 AR-10

>>33276413
There are not many benefits to being leaf, but $600 chink M14 knockoffs is one of them

File: Colt-Canada-MRR-16.jpg (463KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1000x600px

>>33277761
Other benefits: being able to buy Diemaco products, being able to jerk off horses for fun, easy access to chicom QTs

>>33278182
>being able to jerk off horses for fun

But did you fuck an ostritch

>>33274266
Springfield shouldn't had won.

>>33274283
I don't think I've ever seen taste as shit as this

>>33274283
I don't agree with you, but at least you have a valid opinion. Most of these fuckers just want to squat and reeeee.

>>33277241
The final version of .276 Pedersen that would have been adopted was a full-power cartridge on par with .30-06. Nothing of value would have been gained. MacArthur was right.

>>33279457
What's even the point of a rifle that loads itself for you? At that point you're barely even shooting.
You wouldn't drive a car that changes its own gears, would you?

>>33274266
It's just a bad action in general.