*AR vs *M1a

[Sixgun]

Danny, MrMurphy, or others wise to this:
last week when I was cleaning my M1-A, I noticed something that puzzled the heck out of me. You can look right into the gun, where the hammer/trigger/etc is. I wondered, how did something like this pass the dirt test with the military? As I said before, I'm just a levergun guy and never have been in the military, but am framiliar with just about all guns.

The M1 Garand is the same way.

You military guys, is the issue M-14 different than this? Look right behind the bolt.....its all open. Thanks! ---Sixgun

[AJMD429]

Dirt will get IN a gun no matter how tight you seal it up - but it can get OUT of a 'loose and open' one as fast as it gets in, most of the time...

It's also nice because you can see if the hammer is cocked or not.

[Mike Hunter]

Another good point about the Garands/M14s is how simple they are, esp to clean. If it gets full of sand dirt mud etc, pull rearward on the trigger guard, the entire hammer/trigger assy comes right out, flip it upside down, tap it on your helmet and slap her back in place, 5 seconds and your back in action.

But a good Infantry guy would never let that happen

V/R

Mike

[olyinaz]

Danny, MrMurphy, or others wise to this:
last week when I was cleaning my M1-A, I noticed something that puzzled the heck out of me. You can look right into the gun, where the hammer/trigger/etc is. I wondered, how did something like this pass the dirt test with the military? As I said before, I'm just a levergun guy and never have been in the military, but am framiliar with just about all guns.

The M1 Garand is the same way.

You military guys, is the issue M-14 different than this? Look right behind the bolt.....its all open. Thanks! ---Sixgun

Yes, it's that way too.

The Kalashnikov is open back there also (when it's ready to fire) and you can scarcely find an arm more impervious to dirt than an AK.



Oly

[jeepnik]

Dirt will get IN a gun no matter how tight you seal it up - but it can get OUT of a 'loose and open' one as fast as it gets in, most of the time...

It's also nice because you can see if the hammer is cocked or not.

Which is why an old loosey goosey 1911 just keeps working, when some of the high end ones choke in sand and such.

[tman]

Dirt will get IN a gun no matter how tight you seal it up - but it can get OUT of a 'loose and open' one as fast as it gets in, most of the time...

It's also nice because you can see if the hammer is cocked or not.

Which is why an old loosey goosey 1911 just keeps working, when some of the high end ones choke in sand and such.

Accuracy and reliability are a trade off, when u tune it to shoot tight groups.

[MrMurphy]

While the AR was first adopted by the USAF, mostly because LeMay wasn't afraid to make a decision, the AR (as the AR-10, in 7.62mm) was designed for an ARMY study on wound ballistics and new technologies.

The Army was the one who insisted they wanted a smaller caliber light rifle. Nobody else.
That right there, is the reason the AR-15 came to be, no other. Gene Stoner originally designed the AR as a .30-06, then a .308 when they changed calibers.
The Marines can claim the M16 was forced on them. The Army got exactly what it asked for.


Learn your history.

As for the M1/M14 and dirt, yeah, dirt gets in, dirt gets out. Thus why I generally laugh at guys who get all concerned because an AR 'rattles' "But dirt will get in?" "And?"

One of the good parts of the AR design is the fact accuracy is 90% about how the upper is constructed. Reliability is slightly affected by upper/lower fit, but not greatly unless the mag itself it total junk. I shot for qual in basic with an M16A2 that was a Frankenrifle. The lower was an original AR-15 (not M16) lower overstamped "Burst" without a fence around the magazine release and retrofitted with an A2 fire control group and stock. The upper was a newer-ish FN manufactured M16A2 upper.

It sounded like a drum set it rattled so much, but I shot expert with it easily. Despite the fact the upper and lower were made 30-40 years apart (the lower had to have been made in around '64 or '65).

Among the other really odd stuff that happens, a friend was returning from Iraq in 2007 and due to some logistic stupidity they were stopped over in England at Lakenheath IIRC and some equipment on the plane needed to be under guard, but they wouldn't let them break out their own weapons (in locked Pelican cases) apparently due to customs regs or something.

The local squadron didn't have a lot of rifles to spare but they broke out six rifles from storage. He happened to know what they were because he's a student of history. The kids under his command had no clue.

These were ORIGINAL AR-15s from the very first USAF order. Apparently unfired. Still had the original green-ish plastic furniture seen in photos, not the black that the Army and everyone else later adopted, and the three-prong flash suppressor.

They used them for about 2 days till they got clearance to leave, and he got some photos for the record. Nobody knows where the heck they came from (or what became of them).


I do agree 7.62 is way too much gun for indoor use. I've fired an M240 indoors and it was no fun, even with hearing protection in a 175 round burst gets your attention. 5.56mm isn't too bad, no worse than 12 gauge.

I choose an AR because I have a lifetime of experience carrying one. Doesn't mean either choice is bad, but there are times some choices are definitely not 'better'. I've been number two man in a stack with a full size M249, which generally isn't recommended, because the situation demanded it even though I'd never typically choose to use that for house clearing, it upped our likely survival rate due to experience at that time.

The OP will use what he will use, and hopefully, never have to use it.

Just remember Mini's only run reliably with Ruger brand mags. John Masen mags also have a good rep, no others I know of.

[Sixgun]

Mr Murphy,
I learn something new everyday. There's nothing like first hand knowledge. Thanks very much for the in depth explanation. I've had this 95% tunnel vision on leverguns for so long, I forgot other guns existed. (Hey, lets hunt down those old SP-1's--We could make a mint on those )

Oly, that pic tells a thousand words. ------------Sixgun

[MrMurphy]

I've been lucky to have first hand knowledge and (reliable) second hand knowledge.

My dad carried the M14, M16, M16a1 and A2 in combat.

Later on in life, i spent an hour or so and a few hundred emails talking with the actual USMC officer who was responsible for the M16A2 (aka "The USMC rifle team's revenge"). He did the best he could with the requirements he was given.


The history of both the M14 and M16 is fascinating proof that the government can screw up anything in the time it takes to drink two cups of coffee, and how politics screws everything up.

The FAL was a superior combat rifle (and is still in frontline service with quite a few of the 90 countries that adopted it) though the M14 has a better trigger and sights. We adopted the M14 because of politics. If we'd adopted the FAL, the M16 might never have come to be.

The Army commissioned a study on small caliber hit ratios and wound ballistics, the AR-10 just missed out on the M14/FAL testing and the AR-15 came to be. Then the Army (from what I remember) more or less went to war against itself.

Some parts of the Army wanted it adopted, others were outright sabotaging testing to keep it from being adopted. As in, doing 'accuracy testing' where the rifles failed because major parts of the sights had been removed or screwed with and similar fun games.

I dislike McNamara like you wouldn't believe, but on a few things, he was right (common service uniform, again, and a common rifle). They screwed up the introduction of the M16 not surprisingly, but the early combat reports from Vietnam (before they screwed it up) by SF advisors who understood weapons maintenance AND had the correct ammo were what got it adopted. The McNamara budget-saving ideas (like changing back to ball powder and telling troops it's self cleaning) are what got troops killed and gave the rifle it's reputation.

It's not perfect, but it has been combat tested like very few other designs, and yes, the AR isn't (now) what it was (then) because we've learned what works and doesn't. Most weapons improve over time. Look at the Mauser, it didn't spring fully formed into the world as the Mauser 98. Neither did the Lee-Enfield (which between 1888-1957 went through about ten modifications). Even the S&W M&P has gone through about 7 or 8 changes in the last 112 years.

[Mescalero]

What has not been addressed here is that a lot of members here are of advanced age.
I do not see myself going all day with M14, ammo and ruck.
I could low and slow with an AR, ammo and ruck all day, but it would take a toal.
Reality does not equal what if? mental excercise.

[MrMurphy]

I do remember that, which is why I know some people's experiences with the M16 ended in 1969 and they've abandoned them since and refused to learn any more.

I don't get all in a rage about that. My father's a two-war vet with the M16 in it's effectively stock form, and while he did fine with it, he had no experience with the newer models.

We were hog hunting in 2009 and rain hit. Pitch black, pouring rain, heavy forest. Pretty reasonable approximation of combat conditions especially with his background.

Standing under a tree wrapped in Goretex (which he also hadn't used) I handed him my civilian AR, set up exactly like my own issued rifle. 200 lumen white light, illuminated red dot optic, collapsing stock adjusted to shooter length and a combat sling (not the old web strap).

Staring through a "visible" aiming reticule in the darkness and snugging it up into position with the white light on tap ready to go he just mentioned "this would have been really, really handy in '68".

Considering some of his experiences he's occasionally mentioned from that time.......yeah, i can see why. Have had to clear a few buildings in my time with a stock iron sighted M16A2 in armor and it was not too fun, especially the stock length.

Technology changes, and so do people's ideas. Look at the Remington 700-based M24 Sniper Weapon System. The one we've used for years doesn't look much different than a regular 700.

Look at the newest version of the M24. After 10 straight years of war and a lot of technological upgrades, it's borrowed a lot of ideas from the AR rifles, despite being a bolt action with a design history dating to the 1890s. They didn't make those changes lightly, they're from operational requirements.

[Mike Hunter]

MrMurphy

Sounds like you have quite a bit of "operational " background, just curious what it is, we might know each other.

5th SFG(A), 7th SFG(A) then Combat Dev and Contractor

V/R

Mike

[MrMurphy]

Nope, I did nothing fancy or interesting.

However once I got out, I dealt for about a year directly with all the groups and teams like yours directly for a company, so I got a lot of first-hand reports on what did and didn't work.

Getting a phone call in the office from an A-team by satphone in some tiny little COP in Afghanistan describing problems needing fixes (or simply more parts and things) was a daily thing for me, or at least weekly. Between that and my own experiences, I've seen and heard a lot of stuff either firsthand or reliably second-hand, ie. a SFC from 10th Group calling you from Afghanistan is a bit more reliable than "my brother's next door neighbor's cousin Johnny who's a cook in the Army said"

My time in didn't involve seeing combat, just a lot of almosts. A lot of those same guys ended up visiting in person discussing new ideas and fixes with the head shed types, most of whom hadn't served, and some talking with us other guys (two two-tour Afghanistan and Iraq guys, the rest of us had done our time but no shots fired) for our own inputs.

In my unit's case, wasn't from lack of trying to get to the war, but for two years most of our deployments ended up in support positions guarding stuff that needed guarding, just not from Iraqis. We had a couple squads that ended up in Kirkuk and Camp Bucca, but the majority of us didn't despite enough swearing and inventive work-arounds to annoy our 1st Sgt and get on our commander's nerves (he wanted to get over there too).

Rotations changed literally the day I PCS'd and the two squads who thought they were heading to Kuwait (again.... third time in one guy's case) ended up in Afghanistan. Much rejoicing occurred.

[Sixgun]

Mr Murphy,
Keep on talking. You may not think so but for us wanna-be military types, your words are better than the Military History Channel.

I was too young to be in VN, but my older brother spent a year there in '68...DaNang I believe. He used to brag as he was the armorer and had access to the toys and his 14 always had a selector switch on it. He called the 16's "junk" as well as the M-3 grease gun. Said there were many M-1/M-2 carbines around, mostly in the hands of nationals. Thompson's were prevalent but only "who you knew" people got them. Sniper rifles were Winchester Model 70's or Remington 700's with Unertl scopes.

I remember as a kid (14) he sent home some pics after a mess of VC raided their base. About a dozen were killed and one particular picture still stands in my mind as clear as the day I saw it 44 years ago. One VC was trying to get in the base commanders living quarters and the colonel? fired his 14 through the door, leaving the man's innards spread out in a big pile. I learned right then that war was not so cool as I had always thought.----------Sixgun

[MrMurphy]

When I was a lot younger and didn't necessarily understand as much, I asked my dad the M14-vs-M16 question, since I knew he'd carried both (this was just after the Gulf War 1, where he'd had a 1911, an 870 and an M16A2, and usually carried the .45/shotgun because they were on the wet side of Saudi Arabia and contact was effectively not gonna happen in his case).

He said at the time for open field work the M14 was good but in close quarters (heavy jungle, bunkers, etc) he typically preferred the M16. He had one of the originals and cleaned it religiously, and never had issues with it. He actually preferred it over the A1. When things really got hairy though, he preferred an M60 with as much ammo as possible.....


Can't say I blame him on that one.

[tman]

What has not been addressed here is that a lot of members here are of advanced age.
I do not see myself going all day with M14, ammo and ruck.
I could low and slow with an AR, ammo and ruck all day, but it would take a toal.
Reality does not equal what if? mental excercise.

Excellent point

[jeepnik]

What has not been addressed here is that a lot of members here are of advanced age.
I do not see myself going all day with M14, ammo and ruck.
I could low and slow with an AR, ammo and ruck all day, but it would take a toal.
Reality does not equal what if? mental excercise.

Mescalero, see my sig line. It's a quote from an old seargent (he was like 28 at the time) I heard long time ago at a school in Florida. I've found it's a good bit of advice for lots of things. And, while I am well past my prime, going low and slow I could still tote my Scout/Squad as far as I could my AR. Plus I could hit things further away so hopefully I don't have to move as fast as I could have back when I heard those words for the first time.

[AJMD429]

I was musing about this, and tend to break it up into two separate questions...

AR vs Garand design, and .223 vs. .308 cartridge.

So it is really a choice between four guns/types:

• AR-15 in .223
  AR-10 in .308
  Ruger Mini-14 in .223
  M1A in .308

I've been fortunate enough to handle all four of those, though never in an 'occupational' mode.

For the .308 cartridge, unless one goes with a Kel-Tek bullpup or other oddball, it's a choice between the M1A and AR-10, and to me, both felt BIG and HEAVY, but the M1A just felt more like a gun 'should' feel to me, with no stuff sticking out where it didn't need to. (Of course that could be because the AR-10 was scoped, plus the 'pistol' grip.) I didn't shoot either enough (and may not be a good enough shot) to tell any accuracy difference, and didn't have a stable of other 'uppers' to swap out so I could shoot .243 or .358 or any of the other fun biggies, either, so the AR-10 didn't have any particular perceived 'advantage'.

Incidentally the Garand is even 'slimmer' due to the lack of protruding magazine, though the front wood is bulkier. Eight shots and storable-loaded 'clips' make for plenty of home-owner firepower, but all the little fragile-looking parts pushing the cartridges up make me nervous (though never heard of any of them breaking).

As far as the .223-sized guns, it seems like the lack of streamlining with the AR-15 vs. the Mini-14 is much less bothersome, and it also seems like with the wimpier round it would be more important to be more precise in shot placement when able, so any accuracy difference is magnified. Plus, I was a good enough shot to clearly see the difference in accuracy between the platforms (unlike the larger guns I compared, both the Mini-14 and AR-15 were scoped). I still just 'liked' the feel of the Mini-14 (it even had a genuine 'hardwood' stock ) better, but the accuracy of the AR-15 was almost enough to win me over by itself. PLUS, the guys I was shooting with had 'uppers' ranging from 16" shorty to 24" varminter types, scoped and unscoped, that they could change out in a minute. If that same range session had happened now, no doubt someone there would have had a .204 Ruger upper, or a .300 Blackout or .50 Beowulf one, as well.

So.....

My preference would be an "AR" in the short-action cartridges, and an "M" in the long-action cartridges. AR-15 and M1A.

Funny thing is I have a friend who loves his AR-10 (and has a .243 upper for it as well), but prefers his bedded-and-accurized Mini-14 to an AR-15. I think he figures the .223 is mostly for 'plinking' but the .308 is his really 'serious' platform.

As far as cartridge choice.....that depends on what range and power you need, what weight gun/ammo you are willing to carry, and what other firearms you might have in those chamberings.

Dreaming.....

Of course some guys opt for the 7.62x39 cartridge, as more powerful than the .223, yet light weight, but the guns are all either pretty marginal vs. accuracy, or are modifications of AR-15's or Mini-14's that aren't ideal. What I would like, and would almost be willing to make my "one-gun battery" would be the best of both....

• The 'Garand' design - simple, durable, few parts
  a .30 caliber round close to the 7.62x39 in power
  a lighter weight firearm that still feels 'like a gun should'
  good accuracy - minute of angle or close would be great
  suppressable in an effective loading

So, wouldn't it be nice if Ruger would make a Mini-14 with a heavier barrel, in .300 AAC Blackout...???

[FWiedner]

The AR variants are easier to accessorize and repair. Both the AR-15 and the AR-10 can be very accurate at distance but both usually need tuning or accessories to become so.

The M variants are easier to carry and drag considering their stream-line profiles. The Mini-14 can be accurate but is generally a minute of torso tool. The M1A is famous for inherent accuracy, which is likely due to the .308 Win cartridge.

Any firearm can be made dependable with proper maintenance and timely repairs when and if required. Reliability is absolutely essentlial when you evaluate a firearm that you expect to be used to save your ***. I've got both ARs and a Mini-14. I love my ARs but I know that my Mini-14 is 100% reliable.

What's been lightly addressed but would seem to be most important in the mix are the application of the arm in question, the associated requirements to adapt any given arm to the environment or situtation it will be used in, and most importantly, the skill level of the shooter to be able to use that arm as it is designed and configured.

You can build an immense fortification of huge guns to prevent bad guys from invading your eastern border, but if you can't redeploy those assets when the bad guys get mobile and exploit the fact that you can't move your stuff, you're done.

I believe this decision was based on a requirement for house-hold or self-defense.

IMO, that pretty much takes both the AR-10 and the M1A out of the race. While they are fine arms, a .308 of any flavor is just too much for urban or suburban indoor activity, an exception would be a property owner defending his ranch or estate, or for patrol work in an open neighborhood.

I see a flexible requirement for portability. What ever one considers, I'd look very closely at folding and/or collapsible and adjustible length stocks. Accessorization and ability to reconfigure on the move might play in. The user might need a flashlight or a reflex type sight, with the flexibility to stack on a telescope if it goes outside or down the street.

When I dump it down that funnel it looks more and more like an M4 type platform when it comes out the bottom.

It's gotta work every time, and it's got to be able to do the job.

JMO

[tman]

Agree. No matter how well fortified and supplied you think your postion is, at some point, you will be overwhelmed, burned, starved, blown out. You may/will need to move for medical treatment/supplies, water, etc. Fast, lightweight, and portablity will matter most. I'll go with a GLOCK 18 and 33 round clips, If it ever gets that bad.

[jeepnik]

tman, it gets that bad you'd better hope you have air and artillery support. Seriously, if you have to move while under attack, you better have a good fire team that can suply supressive fire and allow you to manuver.

[tman]

tman, it gets that bad you'd better hope you have air and artillery support. Seriously, if you have to move while under attack, you better have a good fire team that can suply supressive fire and allow you to manuver.

I'm looking at it from a personal survival point of view. Military doesn't need to handicap itself with broken down old hunters like me

[GonnePhishin]

Doc,
Care to share just what your friend who has the mini14 did to accurize it? I always hear how reliable they are.

[MrMurphy]

They're reliable against gunk and crud, but when shot a lot, they don't always hold up.

Lot of Mini's no longer get used for prison duty because they send some guys to a shooting course and the guns go down within 400-500 rounds.

They're a sporting rifle originally, and while a full auto model exists, they're 'carry a lot shoot a little' rifles. Mostly small parts breakage. But against the usual dust and sand, etc, they're still mostly a Garand design and do okay.

[olyinaz]

Doc,
Care to share just what your friend who has the mini14 did to accurize it? I always hear how reliable they are.

An Accu-Strut made a significant improvement on my older Mini 14 Ranch Rifle: http://accu-strut.com/

Mine repeatedly shoots 1-1.5" 3 shot groups with match grade ammo now.

And there is this outfit that seriously accurizes Mini 14s:

http://www.accuracysystemsinc.com/index.php

Minimizing barrel whip seems to be critical to improving the accuracy of a Mini. As delivered they are excessively gassed and throw cases at 500 mph into the next county.

Oly

[AJMD429]

Doc,
Care to share just what your friend who has the mini14 did to accurize it? I always hear how reliable they are.

I think he sent it off to Accuracy Rifle Systems or whoever NOW took over that business. There is still the 'old' ARS though, so I am not sure which one. I'll post if I can find out.

BTW I put one of those 'barrel stabilizer' things on mine (makes the gas-block area look like an M1A) and have heard good things about them, but haven't got mine to the range yet. I intend to post a range report someday...

[GonnePhishin]

Thanks Olyinaz for the info. I've seen Accuracy systems website (the one in CO), and they're not cheap. Still, it makes sense that the more barrel mass, the longer it takes to heat up and lose accuracy.
Why are the ar's so accurate in comparison? Is it the barrel design/receiver itself?

Doc, it would be interesting to see how she shoots with the accu-strut.