Following up on a couple prior posts regarding the M14 and M1A, I came across this video that discusses the rifles, but also notes that not all M14 clones are equal. The author shoots an accurized M14 and has apparently tried different models. He indicates that he has owned three Springfield M1As and gives them a hard pass because of "serious" accuracy, quality control, and durability issues. (Although I would note that 9-Holes Review did one of their "practical accuracy to 500 yards" videos of the M1A several years ago and its seemed to do pretty good). Another one that he recommends against are those from BULA Defense Systems because of QC issues on the model he had reviewed. He instead recommends the ones produced by LRB Arms, claiming that they are the only mil-spec models on the market. However, they look like they start at about $3,500.
VIDEO: "M1A / M14 - Before You Buy"
ParaBella (14 min.)
Brian
ReplyDeleteThese recent posts on the M1A/M14...as well as another recent post on problems with the M7...got me thinking about the military's firearms since the end of World War II. The original Stoner designed M16 has had issues, both at its debut and up through the most recent variant the M4. Now the M7 is having issues with it's rollout. What I'm really thinking of is Mikhail Kalashnikov's original design which came out in the late 1940's...which has changed very little...and is still in active service today. Has the AK-47...which has been in continual service with Russia for 70 years...been plagued by as many technical problems as US designs?
ReplyDeleteWell, the Soviets weren't ones for sharing problems, so there may have been issues of which we will never know. But when the original AK-47 was issued, it had a stamped receiver, but because of issues with making the stamped receivers, the Soviets were forced to switch to a milled receiver. I've seen two explanations for this: that they were having QC issues with the stamped receivers; or, alternatively, they just did not have the ability to manufacture stamped receivers in the quantities needed. Whatever the issues, it was eventually resolved so that when the AKM was introduced, it featured a stamped receiver. The AKM also addressed other perceived deficiencies with the AK-47 including the introduction of the slant muzzle break and the inclusion of a "rate reducer" in the trigger mechanism (although an article from The Armory Life indicated that "this is more of an anti-bounce device to keep the fire control system in sync with the bolt during full-auto fire," which suggests that might have been an issue as well.
DeleteMy experience with the Springfield Armory M1A is dated. I bought an M1A about 2005 to compete in then new "He -Man" division in 3 gun matches. I could see the sights back then. I bought one of the loaded models with the medium heavy barrel. I was working for a government agency in those days and had ready access to Federal GMM 168 ammo. That rifle was extremely accurate and never once had a malfunction. Finally gave it up when my old age eyes got to where I could not consistently see the iron sights. Sigh.
ReplyDelete