M1A/M14 best scout/recce rifle, fight me

[JohnPJones]

My second gun ever was a Springfield armory M1A scout squad.

Roughly a decade later I still maintain that for individuals they’re one of the best rifles out there, and are one of the best for scout/recce roles.

with an optic that can reach 3-4x they have the accuracy to make the shots you’d want those optics for, and they have the power to push through what many people might consider cover like cinder blocks or some concrete at 200+ yards.
Semi-auto allows for rapid fire and quick follow up shots.

also they look cool.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Never shot one.

 

[Roaming East]

My second gun ever was a Springfield armory M1A scout squad.

Roughly a decade later I still maintain that for individuals they’re one of the best rifles out there, and are one of the best for scout/recce roles.

with an optic that can reach 3-4x they have the accuracy to make the shots you’d want those optics for, and they have the power to push through what many people might consider cover like cinder blocks or some concrete at 200+ yards.
Semi-auto allows for rapid fire and quick follow up shots.

also they look cool.

I'm gonna disagree on the merits of the M1A
ive had 3 guys challenge my stock, unmodified, PTR91 to 500 yard matches with various M1A setups and the ONLY one to give me a challenge was a M1 national match that was configured for Camp Perry competitions.
From the box an M1A scout squad is a 3 MOA rifle. This isnt hyperbole, its verifiable. Chuck Hawks and others have a laundry list of things one MUST do to a new M1A to get 1 or 2 inch groups since the inherent design issues of the M1 work against it.
compound that with a weapon whose ergo and breakdown are prehistorically bad, and whose accessories are obnoxiously expensive ( $35 for a basic bitch mag). I just dont get the love affair with the rifle as it doesnt out compete ANY .308 rifle in any category. AR-10's, PTR's, and FAL's are cheaper, more reliable, dont require LER optics and with the exception of the FAL, more accurate (and dont require continual tuning to STAY accurate). The only claim to fame an M1A can really make is that its marginally lighter than its competition (although i do have a V Seven build thats less than 7lbs minus scope).

 

[JohnPJones]

I'm gonna disagree on the merits of the M1A
ive had 3 guys challenge my stock, unmodified, PTR91 to 500 yard matches with various M1A setups and the ONLY one to give me a challenge was a M1 national match that was configured for Camp Perry competitions.
From the box an M1A scout squad is a 3 MOA rifle. This isnt hyperbole, its verifiable. Chuck Hawks and others have a laundry list of things one MUST do to a new M1A to get 1 or 2 inch groups since the inherent design issues of the M1 work against it.
compound that with a weapon whose ergo and breakdown are prehistorically bad, and whose accessories are obnoxiously expensive ( $35 for a basic bitch mag). I just dont get the love affair with the rifle as it doesnt out compete ANY .308 rifle in any category. AR-10's, PTR's, and FAL's are cheaper, more reliable, dont require LER optics and with the exception of the FAL, more accurate (and dont require continual tuning to STAY accurate). The only claim to fame an M1A can really make is that its marginally lighter than its competition (although i do have a V Seven build thats less than 7lbs minus scope).

1 MOA is great and all be overkill for most situations. sub MOA is completely unnecessary for most situations as well.

personally i have no problem with the ergonomics except the safety. i find it easier to handle than any AR platform i've handled, the lone AK i've handled, or the FAL i've handled.

 

[Roaming East]

1 MOA is great and all be overkill for most situations. sub MOA is completely unnecessary for most situations as well.

personally i have no problem with the ergonomics except the safety. i find it easier to handle than any AR platform i've handled, the lone AK i've handled, or the FAL i've handled.

and you're right. at standard ranges, 3 MOA will absolutely put a bullet in someone. Only gets dicey beyond 300 or so. My main beef with the M1A is that it has this crazy undeserved reputation for amazing accuracy and reliability when in truth its mediocre as far as average accuracy goes and its pretty finicky in reliability. its why it was tossed out of general service so fast. Nobody says a FAL will be popping head shots at 500 yards but people expect the M1A to do so despite being of similar accuracy. The M1 does have very good target sights though so there is that.

 

[Belaya Smert]

Love the full size M1A. Never shot the scout/tanker version. Have shot the Standard, Loaded and, Super Match version though. Always found the iron sights on those rifles produce a very comfortable sight picture. Post pics

 

[RerouteToRemain]

and you're right. at standard ranges, 3 MOA will absolutely put a bullet in someone. Only gets dicey beyond 300 or so. My main beef with the M1A is that it has this crazy undeserved reputation for amazing accuracy and reliability when in truth its mediocre as far as average accuracy goes and its pretty finicky in reliability. its why it was tossed out of general service so fast. Nobody says a FAL will be popping head shots at 500 yards but people expect the M1A to do so despite being of similar accuracy. The M1 does have very good target sights though so there is that.

The actions also literally beat themselves to death. They need to be bedded like every 1500-3500 rounds iirc.

 

[Protectandserve]

Yeah they are not super accurate to be honest.

I have a JAE stocked one with national match parts and it is definitely not a 1 MOA rifle.

 

[JohnPJones]

and you're right. at standard ranges, 3 MOA will absolutely put a bullet in someone. Only gets dicey beyond 300 or so. My main beef with the M1A is that it has this crazy undeserved reputation for amazing accuracy and reliability when in truth its mediocre as far as average accuracy goes and its pretty finicky in reliability. its why it was tossed out of general service so fast. Nobody says a FAL will be popping head shots at 500 yards but people expect the M1A to do so despite being of similar accuracy. The M1 does have very good target sights though so there is that.

the gun was dropped from service so fast? the gun has been in continuous service with nearly every branch if not every branch of the US military since it's induction.

however if you mean as a standard issue infantry weapon, no reliability was not why it was dropped, it was dropped largely due to weight of gun and ammo, as well as politics part of that being it simply couldn't do everything they wanted it to do as far as replacing like 3-4 different weapon systems, and anyone should have been able to have seen that from the start.

the 500yd super accuracy expectation is probably from the custom sniper jobs of the 90s (see blackhawk down) and the EBR version, so people just equate those as M1A=M14 regardless of anything else.

though i'll agree, there is a weird cult around it, and i admittedly was part of that cult when i first got into guns.

 

[THEfightsAREfixed]

how big are you and how well is your life going overall ?

 

[JohnPJones]

how big are you and how well is your life going overall ?

6'2" 165
it's going alright thanks for asking

 

[THEfightsAREfixed]

6'2" 165
it's going alright thanks for asking

hmm not big enough to be a challenge, im not interested in fighting thanks for offer though also you seem like a nice chap

 

[Roaming East]

the gun was dropped from service so fast? the gun has been in continuous service with nearly every branch if not every branch of the US military since it's induction.

however if you mean as a standard issue infantry weapon, no reliability was not why it was dropped, it was dropped largely due to weight of gun and ammo, as well as politics part of that being it simply couldn't do everything they wanted it to do as far as replacing like 3-4 different weapon systems, and anyone should have been able to have seen that from the start.

the 500yd super accuracy expectation is probably from the custom sniper jobs of the 90s (see blackhawk down) and the EBR version, so people just equate those as M1A=M14 regardless of anything else.

though i'll agree, there is a weird cult around it, and i admittedly was part of that cult when i first got into guns.

reading comprehension my dude. it was dropped from GENERAL service. And dont buy the face saving bologna about it being retired because its 'too heavy'. It was a failure from the get go. the US forced the Army to buy the M14 despite the clearly superior FAL being in service, then when they got to Vietnam, they had warping and accuracy issues almost immediately. Meanwhile MACVSOG were running around doing ops with CAR-15's and Air Force AR15's and praising its abilities.
So in order to NOT look like goons to the rest of NATO to whom the US FORCED the 7.62x51 cartridge SPECIFICALLY to get the M14 into service, they just quietly kinda pulled the thing from standard issue, made some bullshit about weight and carried on. Weight was an issue? really? despite literally all of NATO continuing to use heavier rifles for the next 20 years? i guess us Yanks are just not into this soldiering thing. or rather:
M14 weight- 9.2lbs empty
M16a2 weight-8.3lbs empty
The US military did NOT pull an entire freaking class of weapons from front line service because a bunch of draftee's were butthurt over the weight of a canteens worth of water between the different firearms.
especially since the 90's an A2 would actually weigh MORE than an M14 when standard optic and RAS accessories are concerned. Weight was never an issue. Not in weapon, not in ammo. They only changed infantry tactics to account for the increased firepower an individual rifleman has with an M16 over an M14 like in 90's and i think that had more to do with the proliferation of NODs more than anything else. Riflemen were and are still taught aimed, semi-auto shots, with the LMG providing most of your units effective casualty producing firepower.

Fun ancecdote. When i deployed to Afghanistan in 2006, one of my fellow observers just HAD to get him an EBR. He wheeled and dealed until he finally got one from some unit rotating out of khandahar. I then got to spend almost 4 months listening to him bitch and complain about how his unbalanced heavy POS DMR wasnt holding zero until we got a chance to get it replaced with some boots a4 with an offbrand scope. Good times.

 

[JohnPJones]

reading comprehension my dude. it was dropped from GENERAL service. And dont buy the face saving bologna about it being retired because its 'too heavy'. It was a failure from the get go. the US forced the Army to buy the M14 despite the clearly superior FAL being in service, then when they got to Vietnam, they had warping and accuracy issues almost immediately. Meanwhile MACVSOG were running around doing ops with CAR-15's and Air Force AR15's and praising its abilities.
So in order to NOT look like goons to the rest of NATO to whom the US FORCED the 7.62x51 cartridge SPECIFICALLY to get the M14 into service, they just quietly kinda pulled the thing from standard issue, made some bullshit about weight and carried on. Weight was an issue? really? despite literally all of NATO continuing to use heavier rifles for the next 20 years? i guess us Yanks are just not into this soldiering thing. or rather:
M14 weight- 9.2lbs empty
M16a2 weight-8.3lbs empty
The US military did NOT pull an entire freaking class of weapons from front line service because a bunch of draftee's were butthurt over the weight of a canteens worth of water between the different firearms.
especially since the 90's an A2 would actually weigh MORE than an M14 when standard optic and RAS accessories are concerned. Weight was never an issue. Not in weapon, not in ammo. They only changed infantry tactics to account for the increased firepower an individual rifleman has with an M16 over an M14 like in 90's and i think that had more to do with the proliferation of NODs more than anything else. Riflemen were and are still taught aimed, semi-auto shots, with the LMG providing most of your units effective casualty producing firepower.

Fun ancecdote. When i deployed to Afghanistan in 2006, one of my fellow observers just HAD to get him an EBR. He wheeled and dealed until he finally got one from some unit rotating out of khandahar. I then got to spend almost 4 months listening to him bitch and complain about how his unbalanced heavy POS DMR wasnt holding zero until we got a chance to get it replaced with some boots a4 with an offbrand scope. Good times.

the m14 was in no way or by any metric a failure.
weight of weapon, weight of ammo, and again there was politics with someone from armalite lobbying or some such for the replacement.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

As someone who competed with an M1A for 3 years, I also dig them. I mean the match M1As.

Out of nostalgia I bought a Springfield scout M1A last Dec, and promptly got rid of it after shooting it the first time.

The accuracy wasn't any better than an AK.

An AR platform will shoot under an inch and has better ergonomics. Better way to go for your hard earned $$$.


Actually an M1A in 7mm-08 would be a cool rifle.

7mms are the master bullet.

 

[Roaming East]

the m14 was in no way or by any metric a failure.
weight of weapon, weight of ammo, and again there was politics with someone from armalite lobbying or some such for the replacement.

bold statement. lets quantify it.
Service Length- Shortest in US history: Failure

Cost to Produce- More expensive than its contemporaries despite supposing to use existing machinery from Garand production: Failure

Accurate long range firepower: Couldnt maintain zero, average accuracy was 3 moa or worse on service models :Failure

Reliability: finicky system prone to malfunctions and requiring armorer time to fix : Failure

Sniper Variant-National Match variants that were issued and used between 1970-1980's, Was rapidly replaced and was not the preferred weapon when it WAS standard. Was considered 'not fit for field service, by Benning in 1988. Only saw resurgence in GWOT when M4's proliferated and amongst soldiers generally not sniper school trained. Rapidly replaced AGAIN. :Failure

Basically, the only time you see an M14 is for ceremonial duty (it is certainly a fine ass looking rifle), Navy dudes launching ropes (its a glorified grappling hook lol) and 11B's who want to pretend their Snipers but arent allowed to actually get Mk12's.

You see these things all over the place not because its super awesome but because the Army was balls deep into wanting to adopt it, produced almost 2 million of them, and then pulled it from service before any significant amount could be lost through attrition meaning the surplus market for agencies and departments needing a long arm could get a crate of them for next to nothing. We basically gave a few thousand of them to the Iraqis as a "here, take these off our hands and by the way, youre welcome" kinda thing, and even then the Iraqi's are like "nah, ill stick with this bust ass AKM, or that M16A4, or that VHS or literally ANY OTHER GUN I CAN GET MY HANDS ON"

The M14 is the Rifle version of the 1911. its the quintessential 'Fudd' gun of its time.

 

[JohnPJones]

bold statement. lets quantify it.
Service Length- Shortest in US history: Failure

Cost to Produce- More expensive than its contemporaries despite supposing to use existing machinery from Garand production: Failure

Accurate long range firepower: Couldnt maintain zero, average accuracy was 3 moa or worse on service models :Failure

Reliability: finicky system prone to malfunctions and requiring armorer time to fix : Failure

Sniper Variant-National Match variants that were issued and used between 1970-1980's, Was rapidly replaced and was not the preferred weapon when it WAS standard. Was considered 'not fit for field service, by Benning in 1988. Only saw resurgence in GWOT when M4's proliferated and amongst soldiers generally not sniper school trained. Rapidly replaced AGAIN. :Failure

Basically, the only time you see an M14 is for ceremonial duty (it is certainly a fine ass looking rifle), Navy dudes launching ropes (its a glorified grappling hook lol) and 11B's who want to pretend their Snipers but arent allowed to actually get Mk12's.

You see these things all over the place not because its super awesome but because the Army was balls deep into wanting to adopt it, produced almost 2 million of them, and then pulled it from service before any significant amount could be lost through attrition meaning the surplus market for agencies and departments needing a long arm could get a crate of them for next to nothing. We basically gave a few thousand of them to the Iraqis as a "here, take these off our hands and by the way, youre welcome" kinda thing, and even then the Iraqi's are like "nah, ill stick with this bust ass AKM, or that M16A4, or that VHS or literally ANY OTHER GUN I CAN GET MY HANDS ON"

The M14 is the Rifle version of the 1911. its the quintessential 'Fudd' gun of its time.

shortest service length? it's literally still in service more than 60 years later.
lmao inaccurate? it was literally the designated marksmen rifle for years in afghanistan.
never met anyone whose used one in service from vietnam to now that's ever had any issues with them. try again.

i don't see how you can claim it was a failure because it was quickly replaced as the standard issue weapon, then talk about how it was used for snipers in the 70s and 80s while claiming it was inaccurate, and then it again see wide spread use in GWOT.

no one is saying that nothing better could ever or has never been made, however the fact that the M14 has had a resurgence pretty much every decade for 3 or 4 decades straight is a testament to the fact it was and still is a great rifle.

its a modernized garand that keeps getting modernized, and has found a way to be relevant for 60+ years...thats not a failure

 

[rob mafia]

1 MOA is great and all be overkill for most situations.

wait, what? i find this train of logic to be quite bizarre. especially for rifle. especially with scopes...

and this thread's weird. m1a's were great but ar10s do it all better these days.

 

[Human Bass]

No. It was outdated in its very birth.

An Ar-10 is lighter, smoother, more accurate and better isolated against the elements.

 

[Human Bass]

shortest service length? it's literally still in service more than 60 years later.
lmao inaccurate? it was literally the designated marksmen rifle for years in afghanistan.
never met anyone whose used one in service from vietnam to now that's ever had any issues with them. try again.

i don't see how you can claim it was a failure because it was quickly replaced as the standard issue weapon, then talk about how it was used for snipers in the 70s and 80s while claiming it was inaccurate, and then it again see wide spread use in GWOT.

no one is saying that nothing better could ever or has never been made, however the fact that the M14 has had a resurgence pretty much every decade for 3 or 4 decades straight is a testament to the fact it was and still is a great rifle.

its a modernized garand that keeps getting modernized, and has found a way to be relevant for 60+ years...thats not a failure

The m14 was a mistake that the US insisted due to huge stocks of the gun. No other country showed much interest in it even with US backing it up. The Ar-10,18 and 15 were all more much successful in the international market.