Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles Ar vs M-14

Not sure of your intended roll for either a M-14 or some form of Stoner type 7.62, so reliable can mean a lot of things. Some of the most reliable firearms ever built, within the minds of some, are designated "queens" that reside in a near permanent resting place inside the owner's safe. The only hard use these firearms see, are played out in the mind of said owner.

I'll carry a truck load of love for the M14 to my grave, and they continue to this day to find a way onto the battlefield in some limited capacity and roll as a designated marksman rifle. It is long gone, however, and has been greatly surpassed, within the capacity and roll as a combat service rifle.

The later improvements made by Stoner on his platform, and the subsequent variations of such a semi-auto 7.62 in the numerous packages, have nearly overtaken not only the roll of sniper packages, but are now taking over the roll of designated marksman rifle with more compact and lighter close quarter packages of the same platform. I believe H&K just won a contract for such a package of their platform to be used in such a roll to support the M110 sniper. So in that context, the old M14 is ancient stuff that sees limited use in various unique packages made up from mothballed rifles.

If looking for a reliable combat service rifle, you will likely never see a newer variation of a Stoner 7.62, as it would be too heavy. For the same token, that is why the M14 is no longer considered a good choice as a reliable combat service rifle, it is too darn heavy, in both rifle and in ammunition. The M16 platform, with all of its improvements, is a better choice for that roll. And as far as the later improvements made by Stoner for his 7.62 platform, these improvements were carried over by KAC to the M16 platform, to address all the common malfunctions identified by the military, and these Stoner rifle improvements have either greatly reduced or completely eliminated every identified problem on the list. So this very latest E-3 Mod2 package has taken the M16 platform, with all its differing packages, to a level of performance far exceeding levels of the past. You cannot reach such a level of combat service rifle performance with an M14, in any package.

So with all that said, if you have money burning a hole in your pocket, get any darn thing you please. If it is a safe queen, it will last a very long time. If you get a solid rack grade civilian version of the M14, or any civilian copy of a designated marksman package, they are a lot of fun and are rather cool to have. But, the "AR type" 7.62 is the direction of the military within the capacity and roll it is used, with the M14 being left behind in the dust. The newer platforms are by design modular, having greater versatility, and their reliability have been greatly improved. But, nether of those 7.62 platforms can compete with the current wave of lighter modular rifles, when used in the capacity and roll as a combat service rifle.

Best

I will always have some love for the M1a just because of time spent with the M-21 while serving in the Navy. Mine was a reworked rifle of unknown history that had been fitted with a match barrel. I spent some free time with the armorer and the trigger was improved greatly. I truly wish I could have brought it home with me.

That said, the only AR in 7.62 that I'm tempted by right now is the Ruger. Not that I wouldn't like an LMT or DD rifle, but bang for the buck the Ruger seems like it would be a lot of fun, functional, and not near the price.

M14 is the magazine fed, nearsighted bastard child of the M1 Garand.

AR10 is superior in pretty much every regard.

While we are at it, there are better pistols than the 1911 too.

Oh now it's on.

well I for one agree 100% with this post. I have had many 1911's and still own one, but for a rough and tumble down in the dirt sporting operation I betcha the best 1911 would not hold up near as well as a Glock 9mm on a statistical basis. Show me a 1911 that has been fired 50,000 rounds with no cleaning, no new extractor, no nothing and then your in the ballpark.

Love 1911s. Shoot them well.

But no flies on the Glock and it may well easily hold up better in mud and muck tests than a tight 1911. A loose 1911 runs pretty good.

Carolyn now carries a Glock 10 mm for bear protection in AK. She can get off more and better rounds than with her 329 PD and full on bear loads...

But it will jam too if you don't have it clean and lubed at times...

The only problem that I've had with an M1A was the back of the operating rod popping out of its groove in the receiver. It did kind of stop things. Doubt it would happen with a receiver machined like a true M-14. But I don't shoot any of them much anymore.

I thought I wanted an M1A until I got one. It just seemed like a lot to drag around and deal with for MOA accuracy on good days. A fine rifle but outdated with bad ergo's if optics are used.

I've owned 2 FAL's. The first one sucked (Coonan parts gun.) I figured it was the example I owned so I sold it and bought another (Imbel parts gun) and it sucked even worse. These are like AK's. You hear all kinds of stories of how accurate they are but when you get to the range, well,,,,,,mine never shot worth a chit and I've never seen anyone at the range that had one that impressed me either. DSA submitted one for the first SASS trials and they were cut early for their lack of accuracy.

Never owned an AR-10 (style) rifle. I've shot a few and think they have the most accuracy potential. If I ever got the bug again one of these would get the nod. That said, I'll just stick with a bolt gun when I get to .308 size cartridges. For me I see little advantage to owning one.

FAL's are great.

If you don't use them.




Dave

Well said.

Pieces of schit.




Clark

Only owned 3. Sold one. Kept 2. A springfield and an Armscorp, both built up.

Never had an op rod pop out, but then ours were match guns and built very well.

But they are pretty.





I think the Belgian guns probably were quite accurate, but now they're collector items and priced accordingly. People do use them in vintage milsurp matches, but it takes a lot of attention to detail to get one shooting well.

There was an owner's survey at the FAL Files some years ago; about half the members surveyed said that 2.5MOA was the best expected accuracy.

I did handle a Daniel Defense .308 yesterday. It was pretty handy, but 16" .308's are not on my fun list.

Mine was a DSA 58 or WTF they're called.

No idea why people loves those things the way they do.




Dave

Because when you get all the bugs worked out of a poorly built FAL, or get one that was built and tuned correctly in the first place, they'll run forever. True, FALs are not the most precise of the battle rifles, but they proved reliable in combat