I have one of each. Bushmaster, rockriver, and dpms are cheaper and will shoot much better (MOA OR BETTER) and stay accurate longer than a standard m1a (2or 3 moa until you start spending more money). the AR platform wins in the optic mounting department and match trigger department (pricewise and dependability with out gunsmithing services or expensive mounts). You will spend 3 or 4 k on a mia to get it to shoot and wear optic like a out of the box ar platform by rockriver or dpms.


MY bushmaster feeds 180 or 200 gr roundnose 100% of the time and will shoot it under 1.5 moa with 1x aim point, a 10x scope and match ammo much better!

My springfield 16"socom need a troy battle rail and a high comp target stock to get the same feel as the ar platform. IN the factory stock, it was a 5 moa rifle. In the target stock with troy battle rail and 110 gr ammo its a 2 moa gun with out match work or bedding. The cost of the stock and rail about $600.00 before bedding or shapeing.

The ar's are accurate work horses at 9.5 lbs. The socom is about 12lbs but can be made lighter with a wood stock. The high end sage or troy stocks will bring weight up to 15 lbs

The socom just feels right, like danceing with a good looking young lady, but she is tempamental.

The ar is more like a good mexican gardner, he will get the job done day after day but has no sex apeal

JD

Funny thing is, if you talk to people that fought in Vietnam, Republic of, that used the M-14...,people in Israel that used the M 14..., people in Desert Storm that used the M 14..., people in Somalia that used the M14..., and people in Iraq, and Afganistan, today, that use the M 14 and the Enhanced M 14, you never hear of any widespread problems...

I have shot a lot more M 14,s and M1-A's than I have 308 AR's, and I have never had any problems iwth the M 14/m1-A rifles but I have had serious reliability problems with the 308 AR's I have fired.

The last 2 AR 308's a JP and a Knights worked with no problems, but I was shooting them at the range, not in harsh conditions.

"Rumor" has it that the most reliable 308 semiautos are the G3/H&K 91, and the M 14/M1-A... [I, and many others, would place the M1 Garand in 30/06 or 308 in the same class as the M 14.]

No background on the HK's, or the AR308's, have only casually used them. As for the M1 Garand and M14/M1A's, been shooting them for some 40 years and have always found them to be dependable and trouble free. One of the most accurate "match" Service Rifles ever for me was a Garand in 308, easy half minute gun. You will encounter ruptured cases on either the 14/M1A or Garand if you attempt to reload the brass more than a few times for they do work on the brass.
Will say for the AR's, in the event you have a blown primer/fragments and they lodge into the gas key, the gun is through for the day unless you are lucky and dig it out. Does not happen very often, but have seen it happen. How it gets in there don't know?? Only assuming that as with the AR15's, the 308 versions need to be run "wet" w/ CLP, etc.??

MFD

I have heard of primers getting into the trigger mechanism of an AR and locking one up as well...

But, I have fired several thousand rounds through an AR, reloads, commercial and Military ammo with no problems...

M16 longest running U.S. military rifle....that says it all.

SmokinJ

I have most likely fired more rounds through some sort of AR 15/M16 [I have used both as work guns], than any other firearm...

I have shot them many times over 1000 rounds in a single day for 5 or more days in a row...

I have shot them in some bad weather, and sandy conditions...

I have had very very few malfunctions. Now I do take care of my "guns"... As I take care of all of my equipment...

Now I have had a primer come out and jam the trigger. I pop open the upper and turn the rifle upside down and shake it and the primer always falls out. But...guess what, the military crimps their primers. I've never heard of a primer getting inside the key. That's a pretty small opening.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Now I have had a primer come out and jam the trigger. I pop open the upper and turn the rifle upside down and shake it and the primer always falls out. But...guess what, the military crimps their primers. I've never heard of a primer getting inside the key. That's a pretty small opening.

There were reports of primers falling out in the early days of the AR 15/M16.

I first started using one in 1983 as a work gun, and I have never had it happen to me, either with factory military, commercial or my reloads.

In order to clarify, it is not the whole primer that lodges into the key, but rather a fragment of same. As pointed out, I have also found the AR's to run fine if maintained. Incident involving primer fragment into key occured with individual who is, shall we say infamous for overloading his rounds. Took place during a "rattle battle" event and in trying to determine what stopped the gun, I noticed a glint of something in the key entrance and sure enough it was a small piece of the blown(more like detonated!) primer shell. With small wire was able to push it through and off and running. The AR and it's variants are indeed the longest running gun in U.S. military history and here in WV exists the nations highest concentration of them in civilian hands.

If you do not maintain your battle rifle properly, you deserve what you get...

ISS

I would choose an AR10 over an M14 too.
The gas system of the AR is so much more flexible re: powder selection and there is no op rod to get bent.

I run my AR10 with 45gr of Varget behind a 175 Sierra. I'd cut that back at least 2 gr for the average M14.

quote:

Originally posted by BECoole:
I run my AR10 with 45gr of Varget behind a 175 Sierra.

I use 44 gr. of Varget behind the 175 Sierra MK. That's my 600-1,000yd. load. Very accurate. 100% load density.

I use 45 gr. of Varget with the 168 gr. Sierra MK. It's a compressed load when seated to mag length 2.805"

quote:

Originally posted by Andy:
I have never shot the Kal=Tek bullpup. How is the trigger? What sort of accuracy does it have?

Does the forward ejection complicate clearing a jam an issue like it does the FN2000?

Andy

The trigger is very nice for a bullpup. The manual of arms is very different from an AR or M1A. Clearing malfunctions is no harder than a conventional semi-auto except that the unfired cartridge goes down the ejection chute. The RFB is a lot of fun and a great, reliable gun.

The scope mount for the M1A is a contraption, heavy, expensive, unwieldy. If you want a scope on a semi-auto, the AR is the way to go, I am partial to the LMT MRP which has a one piece upper and forend.

I currently own all 3 weapons, an M1A, AR10 type and a G3 that Parabellum Combat systems built me.
If you are scoping, the easy way is the AR10. Mine runs good with all types of ammo and accuracy is fine. My G3 is reliable and accurate. The standard triggers suck but can be made shootable or even have a set trigger installed. The G3 is easy to scope with a claw mount or by having MSG90/PSG1 weaver bases welded to the receiver. The M1A probably has the best out of the box trigger but the scope mounting is a rube goldberg affair that is awkward to handle and requires a cheek piece of some sort. My scoped .308 semi is a custom built MSG90 clone with a set trigger.

Tim,

do you actually have one of these? I ask because I am still juggling reviews on a proper MBR and this one looked great in their videos. A couple of questions if I may:

1. how many rounds thru it?

2. any issues to speak of, other than break-in related?

3. how pricey are the magazines?

thanks for the information.

Rich

A good scope mount for the M1-A/M14 is the Basset Machine and Tool.

Before you spend money on an AR-10, you should read this AAR from someone who just attended Gunsite's Battle Rifle Course. According to the writer, all three AR-10s (one of which was a Knight) were rendered hors de combat during the course.

The three M1As and single FAL had no problems.

Gunsite Battle Rifle Course AAR

I recall a similar occurrence when I attended Gunsite's Practical Rifle Course so many years ago. At the start of the week, I saw all manner of weapons. At the end of the week, there were bolt-guns, M1As, and a couple FALs. Everything else had broken or weren't able to keep up and had been replaced.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Rohrer:
Before you spend money on an AR-10, you should read this AAR from someone who just attended Gunsite's Battle Rifle Course. According to the writer, all three AR-10s (one of which was a Knight) were rendered hors de combat during the course.

The three M1As and single FAL had no problems.

Gunsite Battle Rifle Course AAR

I recall a similar occurrence when I attended Gunsite's Practical Rifle Course so many years ago. At the start of the week, I saw all manner of weapons. At the end of the week, there were bolt-guns, M1As, and a couple FALs. Everything else had broken or weren't able to keep up and had been replaced.

BS...We know Cooper, the original founder of Gunsite, was a 1911 and M 14 lover. When all the old vets die off you won't hear squat about how good the M 14 was. They are using AR 10's in the sandbox now with no complaints and taking shots too 1200 meters.

The original Armalite AR 10 really beat the M 14 in the government trials, but the stupid idea of a composite barrel that burst, ruined the taste of the government panel, as it was replaced by a conventional all steel barrel but the damage was done.

rmaLite first opened as a subdivision of Fairchild in 1954, specifically to bring new materials and designs to the firearms industry. Later that year they were joined by Eugene Stoner, a talented small arms engineer. ArmaLite was a very small organization at the time (only nine employees, including Stoner). With Stoner as chief design engineer, ArmaLite quickly released a number of interesting rifle designs. The first prototypes of the 7.62 mm AR-10 emerged during 1955 and early 1956.[1] At the time the United States Army was in the midst of testing several rifles to replace the obsolescent M1 Garand. Springfield Armory's T44E4 and heavier T44E5 were essentially updated versions of the Garand chambered for the new 7.62 mm round, while Fabrique Nationale submitted their FAL as the T48. ArmaLite's AR-10 entered the competition late, hurriedly submitting two AR-10 rifles in the fall of 1956 to the United States Army's Springfield Armory for testing. The AR-10 'Hollywood' prototype featured a straight-line stock design, rugged elevated sights, an oversized flash suppressor/recoil compensator, and an adjustable gas system. Initial comments by Springfield Armory test staff were favorable, and some testers commented that the AR-10 was the best lightweight automatic rifle ever tested by the Armory.[2][3]

Unfortunately for ArmaLite, the rifle's aluminum/steel composite barrel (an untried prototype design specified for the tests by ArmaLite's president, George Sullivan, over Stoner's vehement objections) burst in a torture test conducted by Springfield Armory in early 1957.[4] ArmaLite quickly replaced it with a conventional steel barrel, but the damage had been done. The final Springfield Armory report advised against adoption of the rifle, stating that "it would take five years or more to take it through tests to adoption".[3] While ArmaLite objected, it was clear that the AR-10, a brand-new rifle still in the prototype stage, was at a disadvantage compared to competing designs with longer development cycles, and by 1957, U.S. Army infantry forces urgently required a modern, magazine-fed infantry rifle to replace the M1.[5] In the end the Army chose the conventional T44, which entered production as the M14 rifle in 1957.

In 1957, Fairchild/ArmaLite sold a manufacturing license for the AR-10 to the Dutch arms manufacturer, Artillerie Inrichtingen (A.I.). Firearms historians have separated AR-10 production under the AI license into at least four basic identifiable versions, along with various sporting, carbine and other experimental designs and calibers. The four main variants have been termed the Hollywood model (the first ArmaLite prototypes and initial production), the Sudanese model, the Transitional, and the Portuguese model AR-10. A.I. built the vast majority of these rifles, beginning with the Sudanese model AR-10. The Sudanese version derives its name from its sale to the Government of Sudan, which purchased approximately 2,500 AR-10 rifles. The Sudanese was equipped with a very lightweight, fluted steel barrel fitted with a trim, prong-style flash suppressor, a bayonet lug, and lightweight fiberglass furniture.[6] The Sudanese weighed only 3.3 kg (7.3 lb) with an empty magazine.[6] Over time, A.I. would engineer additional improvements and changes to the AR-10, including the provision of a heavier barrel with a chrome-lined chamber, a different cocking mechanism, and a simplified gas regulator.[7] All of these models used the same 20-round lightweight aluminum 'waffle' magazine with pressed-in, corrugated sides, and which was designed by Stoner to be discarded in combat once emptied.[8]

AR-10 production was limited, though Guatemala, Burma, Italy, Cuba, Sudan and Portugal all purchased AR-10 rifles for limited issue to their military forces. Sudanese AR-10s were employed in frequent clashes with guerrilla forces and conflicts with neighboring countries, and a few captured rifles eventually turned up in unofficial service with various African and colonial armies, police, and guerrilla forces.[9] The AR-10 remained in service with Sudanese Special Forces until 1985. In 1958, a special 7.62x39mm caliber variant of the Sudanese AR-10 was produced in very small numbers for evaluation by Finland and Germany. That same year, a 16" barreled AR-10 was developed in response to a request by KLM Airlines for a carbine that could be issued to their crew for transpolar flights as part of an Arctic survival kit, and approximately 30 carbines were eventually produced.[10] A number of Transitional AR-10s were also fitted with a folding bipod designed to lie flat under the forearm.[11] The Italian Navy acquired the AR-10 for its COMSUBIN underwater commando teams. Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Finland, and South Africa also purchased small numbers of the AR-10 for test purposes, and Cuba's Batista government purchased 100 "Transitional" model rifles in 1958. Fidel Castro's forces eventually captured the AR-10 shipment intact. In 1959, Fidel, his brother Raúl, and Che Guevara test-fired the AR-10 outside Havana, and were reportedly impressed by the weapon's firepower.[12] In June 1959 Castro gave the AR-10s to a group of communist revolutionaries from the Dominican Republic who returned there the following month in a seaborne and airborne invasion.[12][13] Betrayed by local residents, the rebel forces (led by Cuban officers), were surprised at the water's edge; those dropping via parachute were hunted down in the following days by the Dominican army. Captured AR-10 rifles from the Batista shipment were found on the bodies of guerrillas killed in firefights with government forces.[12][13][14]

The final Artillerie Inrichtingen design is known as the Portuguese model AR-10. This final version incorporated all that had been learned to date about the AR-10, including infantry service rifle and field test reports. In addition to the heavier barrel, optional bipod, and plastic/metal handguards of the Transitional model, the Portuguese variant had wider bolt lugs, a stronger extractor, a new three-position gas regulator, and a cocking handle featuring a forward bolt assist.[15] It is believed that approximately 4-5,000 Portuguese variants were produced; nearly all of them were sold to the Portuguese National Defense Ministry by the Brussels-based arms dealer SIDEM International in 1960.[16] The AR-10 was officially adopted by Portuguese Hunter paratroop (Caçadores Pára-quedista) battalions, and the rifle saw considerable combat service in Portugal's counter-insurgency campaigns in Angola and Mozambique.[17] In U.S. Army tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground in November 1960, and later in Portuguese service, the AR-10 gained a reputation for accuracy[18] (some rifles would group into 25 mm (1 inch) at 100 meters with service ammunition); the paratroopers also found them reliable despite rugged service conditions in African jungle and savannah.[19] A few Portuguese and Sudanese model AR-10s found their way by various means to nearby African countries; in Chad, the AR-10 was much appreciated by members of French Foreign Legion. As one police instructor in the Congo stated, "It was a good combat weapon that never failed me; a bit too long (but not as bad as the FAL or M-14) for house-to-house work or really heavy brush, but great for 400-800 meters, in the flats - and really nice on the body, after wandering around 12-14 hours looking for bad guys."[9][20]

Some Portuguese-model AR-10s were fitted with A.I.-modified upper receivers in order to mount 3x or 3.6x telescopic sights.[21] These rifles were used by marksmen accompanying small patrols to eliminate individual enemy at extended ranges in open country.[22] Other AR-10s were used by the paratroopers in a secondary role to launch rifle grenades. The AR-10's built-in gas cutoff design enabled it to fire Energa rifle grenades without adjustment of the gas system, and the self-loading action would even eject the spent blank shells and load the next one, allowing several grenades to be quickly fired. The added recoil took its toll on rifle stocks, and some Portuguese rifles were retrofitted with all-metal buttstocks to better withstand the added recoil and strain caused by firing the heavy grenades.[22] Plans to order additional quantities of the AR-10 rifle were stymied after the Netherlands embargoed further shipments of the rifle to Portugal; paratroopers deploying to Africa in later years were subsequently issued a collapsible stock version of the German Heckler & Koch G3 rifle.[17][21] Nevertheless, the AR-10 continued in service with a few Portuguese airborne units, and was in use as late as 1975 in the Portuguese Timor (East Timor) decolonization emergency.[23]

By 1960, hampered by Dutch export restrictions and discouraged by the lack of arms sales to major national purchasers, Artillerie Inrichtingen decided to exit the small arms production business altogether, and ceased all production of the AR-10 under its license from Fairchild-ArmaLite. By that time, less than 10,000 AR-10s had been produced, mostly military select-fire rifles, with a few semi-automatic only rifles produced for civilian use.

In later years, some ex-military Sudanese and Portuguese model AR-10s were sold to civilian markets in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Nearly all of the rifles imported to the latter three countries had their full-automatic fire selector disabled. Subsequently, as many as 2,500 Australian AR-10 rifles may have been confiscated and destroyed as a result of more restrictive firearms legislation passed in 1997.[24]

Most of the AR-10 ex-military rifles shipped to the USA were in the form of parts kits, having been previously dismantled, though a few were legally imported as National Firearms Act (NFA) weapons. Large numbers of AR-10 7.62 mm magazines were imported as well. Many of these kit rifles were combined with various semi-auto receivers made by civilian manufacturers in order to permit legal ownership. During the early 1980s, the Joliet, Illinois based Paragon Sales and Services manufactured new semi-automatic lower receivers while using imported upper AR-10 receivers originally manufactured by Artillerie-Inrichtingen in the Netherlands.

In 1958, ArmaLite developed the 5.56 mm AR-15 from the AR-10. The company continued its efforts to sell both the AR-10 and AR-15 to various military forces around the world. However, the AR-10 rifle marketed by ArmaLite after 1958 was not the product-improved AR-10 developed by Artillerie Inrichtingen, but rather a design scaled-up from AR-15 plans and specifications, the AR-10A.[25] None of the improvements incorporated by Artillerie Inrichtingen over three years of production were used in the new AR-10A.[26] Although the AR-10A did not benefit from the modifications undertaken by the Dutch licensee, it had some differences from the AR-15 (besides caliber and part dimensions), including a different bolt, trigger, and cocking handle design, along with a magazine canted forward at a five-degree angle.[26] While interest in the AR-15 was considerable, the AR-10A failed to attract any orders from domestic or foreign military customers. In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10/AR-15 to Colt, who successfully marketed the AR-15 to the U.S. military. Disappointed with ArmaLite's marketing efforts, Fairchild dissolved its association with ArmaLite in 1962.

With the rights to the AR-15 design sold and AR-10 production at AI discontinued, ArmaLite next developed a series of new rifle designs in 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm. The 7.62 mm NATO rifle was designated the AR-16. The AR-16 and the other newly-designed ArmaLites utilized a more traditional gas piston design along with stamped and welded steel construction in place of aluminum forgings. The 7.62 mm AR-16 (not to be confused with the M16) was produced only in prototype quantities. By the 1970s, ArmaLite had essentially stopped all new rifle development, and the company became moribund.

quote:

BS...We know Cooper, the original founder of Gunsite, was a 1911 and M 14 lover. When all the old vets die off you won't hear squat about how good the M 14 was. They are using AR 10's in the sandbox now with no complaints and taking shots too 1200 meters.

1. I am not aware of his preference for the M14; I do believe he thought highly of the M1, though.

2. There are far more M14s in battle now than AR10s.

3. I hope you aren't suggesting that the AAR writer or I are lying or mistaken. Your opinion has no bearing on our knowledge of events.

From what I hear the M 14's in use are drastically worn out. I've also heard the military is scurrying for any kind of 308 replacement.

No not calling anyone a liar. I take those kind of stories with a grain of salt. Just could be those particular AR 10 had some problems to begin with.

Sweeney, who writes for G&A, recently took quite a few AR 15's out for a serious test. These included piston driven and direct impingement. You'll have to read the article, but to tell you nary a rifle skipped a heart beat under some very tough torture tests.

Let me say this too. I'd take an FNLAR any day over an M 14.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Rohrer: (one of which was a Knight)

I have a Knight SR-25 (it's not a "Stoner").

The SR-25s are what the US is using in the sand box and I've not heard of any problems. In fact, I've only heard favorable reports.

Kevin, like SmokinJ said, I'd take second hand internet reports like that with a grain of salt (especially when posted on an M-14 aficianado site)!

quote:

Kevin, like SmokinJ said, I'd take second hand internet reports like that with a grain of salt (especially when posted on an M-14 aficianado site)!

It's not a second hand account if the writer viewed the situation he is reporting on. And in the class I reported on, I was in attendance.

And I have nothing against the AR10. The original poster wanted factual information and I feel that the Battle Rifle poster and I gave him anecdotal information that if I were the original poster, would take seriously.

Personally, I wish I had my Belgian FN LAR back.

In 1990, Stoner joined Knight's Armament Company (KAC) to create the Stoner Rifle-25 (SR-25), which currently sees military service as the United States Navy Mark 11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System. While at KAC, he also worked on yet another version of the Stoner Weapons System, called the Stoner 96. Among his last designs was the SR-50 rifle.

This is not to be confused with the actual weapon system Stoner created in the 60's, which were 5.56x45 caliber.

Notice in the first paragraph the military is using the Knight rifle and with great success. The day of the M 14 is OVER, they aren't going to resurrect new ones. The government sold off the tooling or destroyed it...at any rate it's gone.

The British have the same problem clamoring for a 308 caliber weapon in the sandbox. They even embarrassed themselves by asking their colonies for FNLAR's. In one instance they were even thinking of using the old SMLE 303's in special applications.

From m experience KAC are excellent rifles built for hell -- but expect MOA and often 1.5MOA. For that kinda dough you would do better with LWRC or LaRue...but I would suggest LMT or Noveske.

True, many DPMS will shoot MOA outa box, but those here who know and shoot will attest to sub-par parts.

M1A fantastic rifle...but so much harder to work on, optics much more difficult, and expensive to mount. I have a Springfield Scout Squad that is a MOA rifle (stock) and a SS barreled loaded that shoots very well. BUT its my AR-10's I shoot much more. Easier to clean and work on.

Hell, my Eagle Arms is a MOA 3shot (not a 5 shot) shooter and my 10T is damn good....Noveske runs rings around em. Shoot a few .35 3 shots every now n then..but .5 is good to go even with 5 shot groups.

If you go M1A get a small base die...Mia rifles dosome serious cahnges to your brass.

British Defence Force just ordered the LMT 308 as their new "heavy" battle rifle.



http://www.defensereview.com/d...arksmen-and-snipers/

http://www.lewismachine.net/about.php

LaRue. It, KAC and LMT are all closely related--many of the parts could be interchanged and you could swap uppers and lowers. They all take the same magazines. They are the future. The AR10--an Armalite trademark-- is falling from favor.

The KACs in service are sometimes problematic. The current production guns are the best ever, but none of the big guns can be run as hard as an M4. The LaRue may be an exception, time will tell.

The M14 is horribly outdated and if it weren't in the warehouse they wouldn't be using them now. Soldiers issued them often complain of maintenance issues, lack of parts and mags, and they find that they can't shoot much farther with M80 ball than they can with 5.56mm. Particularly if they have access to MK262/AA53.

Sug Ret on the website for the KelTEc is now $1880. Anybody know what street numbers are?

Rich

Most recent Gunbroker sales-

16 April --$1825
12 Apr---$1749
8 Apr--$1675
4 Apr--$1624

20 Mar-- $1599
16 Mar--$1650

20 Feb-- $1625
19 Feb---$1650
7 Feb--$1675
6 Feb--$1675

28 Jan---$1650
20 Jan---$1750
14 Jan-- $1450

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
.....they find that they can't shoot much farther with M80 ball than they can with 5.56mm. Particularly if they have access to MK262/AA53.

I highly doubt they are using M80 ball in these M-14s!

Generally they are issued 0-3 magazines and no M118LR, so they buy magazines commercially with their own money and delink M80. It was a foolish move--they should have simply purchased free floating rails for M4s and put ACOGs on them.

My son (Marine) was allowed to take an match built M1A that I had constructed in a Troy frame on his Iraq deployment.

A new general order for the Corp, ie --"NO private weapons to be deployed"--prevented him from taking it to Afghanistan--

Go figure--

In fact, my friend, a Colonel who had carried his 1911 EVERYWHERE in his career--and his General had to leave their private weapons.
EDIT: ammo was "whatever was available" some "good" some "bad" per my son

Hmmm, I had served in OIF and OEF a few times in the early through mid 2000s, every set of orders deploying me and my units from CENTCOM specificallay dealred POWs a no no.

Makes me wonder about anyone other than a GO, who by Joint Pub and US Code, are authoriozed to toe thier POW (issued) sidearm anyway the US has jurisdiction....

The rest of us are bound by Laws of Land Warfare & convention to carry only issued weapons to insure the code is enforced. Not that I necessarily agree!

Thank you Son for his service for me!

Andrew
Maj, USA (Ret)

Andrew,

The Corp apparently allowed "inspected and approved" private weapons that were of the same type (in this case M14 variant)

as an issued weapon for designated marksman/rifleman(as he was) and spec-ops as well as many officers.

In my son's case it was "suggested " to him if he could get an M1A it would readily be approved (as they were short on M14's)

Perhaps they were just "skirting" the issue without attracting CENTCOM's attention.



Thank you for your service and thank you for your thoughts for my son--

He is currently enroute to Germany at this time for further eval after shrapnel removal.

To my knowledge big Army has consistently prohibited privately owned weapons. I've spoken to some people who have acquaintances who carry their own weapons, but those guys are "Other Coalition Forces" and don't fall under CENTCOM. In this case, JSOC.

Now, at one point privately owned uppers and optics weren't unheard of.

quote:

Originally posted by DaMan:

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
.....they find that they can't shoot much farther with M80 ball than they can with 5.56mm. Particularly if they have access to MK262/AA53.

I highly doubt they are using M80 ball in these M-14s!

I don't at all, LR118 special ball is hard to get ahold of for true snipers, much less the cobbled together DMR's that companies are throwing together.

Guys like the SF components will have 118, but then again, they've also got access to the new SCAR-17 DMR rifles, and the like.


The M-14 is being phased out again, because its drawbacks have again been realized, and the M110, (AR-10) is its replacement. There's no doubt or argument about it. It was intended only as a stop gap, and served its duty.

And Dugga, sounds more like your son had a command that ignored the standing order that personal weapons were not allowed, as its been that way in OIF/OEF since the beginning.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
Andrew,

The Corp apparently allowed "inspected and approved" private weapons that were of the same type (in this case M14 variant)

as an issued weapon for designated marksman/rifleman(as he was) and spec-ops as well as many officers.

In my son's case it was "suggested " to him if he could get an M1A it would readily be approved (as they were short on M14's)

Perhaps they were just "skirting" the issue without attracting CENTCOM's attention.



Thank you for your service and thank you for your thoughts for my son--

He is currently enroute to Germany at this time for further eval after shrapnel removal.

I'll bet they had a weapon or two that were deadlined for maintenance/turn in, and so they showed a total of x rifles on the book, and with a little bit of constructive book work, added his SN to the company hand receipt, and no one looked at it any closer than that.

I know of personally owned M-9's going to the box under similar circumstances.

Since the beginning of OIF/OEF, POW's have been expressly banned by name. But that doesn't mean its impossible to do, just requires some effort.

quote:

Originally posted by DaMan:

quote:

Originally posted by BECoole:
I run my AR10 with 45gr of Varget behind a 175 Sierra.

I use 44 gr. of Varget behind the 175 Sierra MK. That's my 600-1,000yd. load. Very accurate. 100% load density.

I use 45 gr. of Varget with the 168 gr. Sierra MK. It's a compressed load when seated to mag length 2.805"

+1 to both the 168 and 175 smk loadings.

quote:

Originally posted by AK_Stick:

I'll bet they had a weapon or two that were deadlined for maintenance/turn in, and so they showed a total of x rifles on the book, and with a little bit of constructive book work, added his SN to the company hand receipt, and no one looked at it any closer than that.

I know of personally owned M-9's going to the box under similar circumstances.

Since the beginning of OIF/OEF, POW's have been expressly banned by name. But that doesn't mean its impossible to do, just requires some effort.

That makes sense.

I don't know about this situation of personal guns in the sand box, but I knew a Marine Captain that carried a special made 22 magnum rimfire machine gun specially made for him by a close gunsmith for use in Vietnam. He did have one stipulation though and that was his commanding officer said it was okay, but he had to take his M16 with him. He said fine and that's what he done.

quote:

From what I hear the M 14's in use are drastically worn out.

You won't wear out a mil spec M14.

Every part (aside from roller bearing) is easily replaced IF needed. Quality on true mil-spec parts are excellent.

My Springfield M1A NM will do sub MOA all day every day with 168 Sierra's & varget.... w/ open sights.

M14's have had zero issues in the real world for 55+ years, are still in service, and are returning.