So every time the M1A is mentioned people always say it sucks

>>33673388
1. It's Springfield
2. Build your own, it's more fun and you learn why you have to tweak it every 20 rounds
3. Don't give the corporate retards money for designing dogshit like the "SOCOM"
4. Don't give the corporate retards money for blatantly trying to rip you off
5. >Buying M14ery for any reason other than rocking out with your "It ain't me" out

>>33673939
So it's not a bad gun per se, people just hate the company for being just like literally every other modern gun company.

>>33673959
Oh no it's still shit. Once they ran out of m14 receivers they cut corners like it was crunch time at the circle factory. I've looked at new in box ones on the shelves and the fit and finish looks like ass. Miscellaneous metal parts still have burrs and tags left on them from the molding. Once you take the rifle out of the Certified Springfield wooden stock the insides are horrendous.

>>33673969
So they look like shit. Would any of said cut corners wear certain parts out quickly or result in a common point of failure?

>>33673986
>I don't get why it's bad that a rifle that regularly retails for around $12-1500, has shit fit and finish.
Let's be honest here, you already bought one and you're just trying to justify your purchase, aren't you?

>>33674151
I'm heavily considering it. A friend bought one and let me shoot it, and I was surprised how much I liked it considering the flak it gets here. I wanted to know if there were actual issues before I pull the trigger.

File: M1A user opinion.png (156KB, 1061x879px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1061x879px

>>33673388

>>33674234
Receivers on par with their Norinco counterparts. You can save half your cash and get a Norinco M14 and dress it up in a wood stock. The only difference is that the Norinco doesn't have a Springfield rollmark.

>>33674253
>Receivers on par with their Norinco counterparts.
Norinco has forged receivers, their new stuff is quite good. But since you and OP are likely Amurricun, watch out for the old sketchy receivers still in circulation.

>>33674253
I'm not Canada
>>33674251
>the trigger sucks
now that is some horse shit.
I can't speak for reliability from my own experience but it had no problems when we shot it and the owner said it's always cycled all the ammo he's tried.
also doesn't the M1 need an adjustable gas plug to work with modern ammo, that needs to be tweaked for different loads?

I'm not rich enough for an LRB right now, but so far the only specific gripes I've heard are the receiver is cast and the barrels not chromed. I figure I get a standard or loaded M1A now, or soon, and replace those in a few years.

>>33673388
>Replacing the barrel and receiver
At what point have you just made a whole new fucking gun?

>>33674310
According to the atf the gun is the receiver. According to several euro jurisdictions it's the barrel.

>>33674234
Then if if really want to pay too much for a rifle either buy the Match so it's a least good at something, a Garand, BM59 or a better one from LRB or Fulton. You're still throwing money away with the last two but they're much nicer.

Actually just get a BM59

>>33674304
It's a $25 part on a gun that's cheaper than the M1A while being better built. There are also plenty of .308 Garands around

In that case just buy a used mini if you like the action. It's like you're trying to build a money pit

>>33673969
M14 receivers are class 3 items, Anon.

>>33674626
Completed ones maybe.
Just don't install the dongle and you're set. Some welding required.

It's not that they suck. It's that it's vastly overpriced for what you get.

I own a Polytech and I got it for a fraction of an M1A and it's rock-solid. Ignore everything anyone says about "muh history, dat's commie garbage". Every single M14 on the Title I market out there is a clone. None of them are original and I don't think any at this point are even built with USGI parts anymore. Springfield Armory is not the Springfield Arsenal, despite what their marketing may imply. Only go based on quality of the specimen inspected. If you decide to get an M1A because you evaluated your options and it won out, great.

M14s are kinda finicky when shopping for one, because they tend to have minor issues out of the box that you need to fix, regardless of who makes it. Sometimes the bolt doesn't like to cooperate, sometimes the bolt is soft, sometimes there's burrs on the receiver, whatever. The good news is that they can usually be fixed. My $900 rifle can have them and a $2000 rifle can have them.

Be EXTREMELY careful about accurizing them, despite the fact that every ex-Marine and wannabe who ever touched one likes to do that. That shit is a fucking money pit with a low ceiling for diminishing returns. It's a Cold War battle rifle, and not even the most accurate one. It was never designed to be a DMR or sniper's rifle and the only reason it got pressganged into that role is because we needed one for Afghanistan quick, fast and in a hurry and we had them sitting around. Any bolt-action .308 you can buy will, out of the box, kick an accurized M14's ass from here to Sunday. I'd throw a scope on it (and I plan on doing it to mine), that's the farthest I'd go. Before accurizing anything, get as good with it as you can stock. 90% of rifles are more accurate than their shooters and that goes for M14s too.

>>33673388
If you are gonna get an springfield m1a, try and get one thats pre 1993 made. The receivers were well made, and some have usgi parts, but thats not really as important as the receiver.

IMO if you can get only a good receiver already barreled and headspaced and indexed, do that. And then overtime build it up until its complete.

The main causes of inaccuracy are the barrel not being headspaced or indexed or installed correctly. And the gas piston. It turns out that you have to try out different gas pistons until you find one that makes your rifle shoot well. Some m14 smiths have found that people who had good groupings and then switched their gas piston out sometimes had open groupings. And this is all because gas pistons are not made equal.

Off the top of my head, the only 3 usgi parts that are worth having are the op rod(bolt handle), a bolt, and the trigger. Gas piston and guide rods from sadlak are good to go. And if youre going to geta scope mount, just get a sadlak airborne mount, best not to dick around with springfield.

Tool wise, if you want all the tools to do work on the rifle, it will total to about 70$. You will need a castle nut wrench, a gas block wrench, a few drill bits for gas system cleaning, a barrel wrench(if installing it yourself), and a socket wrench.

If you want to read up on the m14 and m1a, google gus fisher on m14 forum. His threads are easier to read than other posters.

>>33673939
>Buying M14ery for any reason other than rocking out with your "It ain't me" out

better gun than the AR

>>33673388
>if I have an M1A and get a forged receiver and chrome lined barrel from LRB or someone is that enough to make it not suck?
>Is it enough to replace pretty much the only two things that matter?
I mean...yes?

>>33674778
Unless you do an M16A1, XM16 or XM177 repro build.
>>33673388
M1As have kinda lousy fit/finish nowadays which is shameful considering how much they cost, but they generally work and they are pretty good rifles.

Also you aren't going to get a forged receiver on an M1A, they're all cast. You can build and M14Gery on a forged receiver if you want to dump stupid money on it, but while having a forged receiver is a nice a decent in-spec cast one is fine.

Really the best way to enter the market is to save up a bit and buy an early M1A that has either full USGI parts or at least a USGI barrel and replace the extractor with a forged one. I got the latter for $1,300. I also used to have a Federal Ordnance M14A with a low serial and all USGI parts, which ended up being torn down to build out an LRB receiver after I sold it. I went with the M1A because while the Fed. Ord. had better parts it just wasn't screwed together very well. It did work reliably for the most part, but it would rattle quite a bit and the op rod would occasionally jump the track.

Bought a m1a from Springfield 2 years ago to shoot 3gun with in the heavy metal class. Are the the best battlerifle going... no, but they are fun and imo great iron sights.

I don't have an LRB myself, but I got to look around their shop and molest about half a dozen of their rifles when I visited, including the barreled actions and stripped receivers They look like A+ rifles and you can tell they put huge pride into their work (and the girl who works there is a qt3.14 and knows more about M14s than I ever will)

>>33673939
>5. Buying M14ery for any reason other than rocking out with your "It ain't me" out

Silly anon, that's what retro ARs are for.

>>33674778
Objectively wrong

I managed to get a new Springfield as a graduation gift, planning on shooting the barrel out then buying a Fulton barreled receiver and keeping the original stock and trigger
>Only one outdoor gun range within an hour
T-thanks grad school

>>33673388
OKay, these stupid numb nuts refuse to point out the real problem most people have with them accuracy issues aside.

The recievers are cast, and even when they were forged they had problems with stretching and warping.
Boom.
That is literally 100% of why the G3 pattern and FAL pattern rifles are 100% superior wen it comes to functioning as a rifle.

Doesn't mean they ain't sexy as hell and fun Plinkers if you're okay with them eventually dying a very painful death and jamming a good bit.

>>33674778
This is some nice bait that channels faggotry from various sources.

Is it an AR fanboy? Fudd? teh nams vet? Who knows!

>>33674641
>welding
NEVER WELD ANYTHING TO A M1A/M14 RECEIVER

>>33675519
I haven't heard about receiver stretching except with Norincos

>>33675563
Scope mounts were welded to garand receivers.

>>33678553
Not by militaries.
Welding a scope mount on was a bubba hack job and pretty much ruins the longevity of the reciever.

File: retarded on purpose.jpg (247KB, 1224x1445px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1224x1445px

>>33674251
so the guy who also owns a g3 says the trigger sucks

File: 1483178340894.gif (3MB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 600x338px

>>33675519
>m14 warps and stretches
>but the stamped steel blowback guns and the bored out intermediate cartridge guns do fine