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

I think that for absolute reliability, I would rather buy an M-14-type rifle than an AR-10. I just like the rifle better for one thing.It is a proven performer, as is the AR.

I would like some opinions from someone that has handled both types. I have shot lots of .223 through ARs, but I have shot the M-14 rifles very little. If I buy a rifle, it will be the .308-not the .223.

I"m old... I like the M1A.

The AR is every bit as reliable in a well built rifle.

If I were going 308 I"d probably go AR 10 though. Just because of what you can modularly do to it/with it. Well built of course.

Easy to float, various triggers, and all the other toys you can add.
Vs the M14, would have to be double or triple lugged. Not much you can do with it. scope mounts are ok, but interesting, and only a few.

For me, I"ll have Carolyn with a shorter AR of some type and me with a bolt gun in 308...if I were to be worried about anything.

I tend to agree with the bolt action.

If you are after accuracy be aware of what it takes in a 14.... probably 2500 plus dollars. And then unless you have spent the money on lugging, you'll have to know how to skim bed every 2500 rounds or so.

In reality, and just FWIW, what is the duty of this rifle such that 223 won't work? I"m just asking, 223 can do a LOT more than most folks think, and I'm not anti large or anti magnum at all....

My experience is limited but I find shooting a garden variety AR10 to be easy and generally they seem to be quite accurate w/o a bunch of effort. Reliability outside of match tuned is unquestioned. They are heavy though. I dont find the M1A that comfortable to shoot and while they can be very impressively accurate they have a reputation of being finicky and prone to having some lesser degree of self degradation. AR10 has lotsa accessories available and can mout many sight or optics without a lot of hassle. Not as easy w/ M1A. Simple answer though is like you said, the M1A suits you so that is the way to go.

I got rid of all of my .223 stuff years ago. I am just not crazy about small stuff.

I have no specific use for the rifle. It is more hypothetical than anything right now. I just like the .308 a lot better and am kicking around maybe getting one of the above at some point.

No specific use for the rifle then, just begs you to buy what YOU like and want.

We kept 2 M1As, Krieger tubes, MC Stocks, and very nice shooters. Awful reliable. At the time probably didn't have more than 1500 or so in them. Myabe closer to 2000.

But FWIW a rack grade M1A I bought initially, even not bedded would scare teh heck out of MOA....Springfield....

I have seen a little dip in M1A prices, and between now and November you should keep your eye open for a good (little used) M1a.

The Stoner Platform does have some advantages over the Garand design.
Lack of an expensive operating rod does allow for a wider range of bullet weights
and load velocities.

Having grown up with Garands and M14's the 308AR's are new to me.
I purchased a lightly used LMT MWS last year and have found it money well spent.

Good shooting.

308 ARs are the future, but they still have growing pains. M1A's are relics of the past. Can't fault someone for buying/liking an M1A SOCOM or Scout though. PSA even had SOCOM's on sale recently.

m14's are way way too heavy for one. If I was going 308 I would get a dpms gen 2, shoot enough to make sure its reliable. That gun could be customized alot more as well.

Not all 14s are heavy, though our match ones are.

I have the AR platform 308s

They are easy to carry until you put a 25 doing magazine in them.(adds 3 pounds)

I'd rephrase this...




Travis

If I had to buy a semi-auto .308 I think it'd be an M14.





Travis

An M1A holds/shoots offhand like no Ar10 ever will. If you are a prone/scope ninja go AR-10 for sure

DoD did testing in the 1960s that showed the M14 to have a shorter MRBF than the M16, and that was when M16s had bugs and M14s had GI parts. Now the M16 has had sixty years of development and M14s are full of castings.

The M14 was one of the most expensive rifles to maintain that has ever been fielded.

M14's are interesting, look good, and feel pretty good, but their quirks offset the aesthetic appeal, IMO. Without much trouble you can get an AR10 to shoot very well, and the ergos are more practical. Neither is a lightweight rifle.

I still want an FAL someday

Don't forget the G3 either.

Pick the stock you like. I like AR's just fine, but I really like the M1A stock. I have a scout squad in a synthetic stock and it is pretty light for what it is.

I owned a couple M1a's and an AR-10... In an M1a I liked my Bush Rifle a lot. Much lighter than my full sized walnut version.... I think they were calling it the "Loaded" model at that time. Both were accurate rifles. The bush rifle had some muzzle blast to it. I put a tritium front sight, and ghost ring rear aperture, and modified a light holder meant for a shotgun, and mounted a Surefire with a pressure switch, and for a while it was my bump in the night gun.

My AR10 was the big DPMS LR308 with the 24" bull barrel. Freaky accurate. Way fun to lob shots at long range and watch trace. BIG heavy beast.

If I were buying another semi 308, AR all the way. Just a much easier platform to deal with and I pretty much need a scope these days.

Always wanted to take that M1a Bush rifle hog hunting in California. It was, at the time, Cali legal.

My buddy B has a couple lighter AR10's set up tactical. Pretty sweet.

Expensive sunsabitches to feed properly though.... .223 wins big time there! Back when 200-round battle packs of NATO milsurp 7.62 were $40 the semi auto .308 made more sense. Now, too rich for my blood, to really "do the voodoo they do" ....

With no bear trouble in 25 years I've gone to AR15's for my grab guns.

Thanks for the input. It definitely gives me something to think about.

Yeah, I was be-moaning the thoughts of cheap ammo days this past weekend.

I will always have a soft spot for a wood stocked battle rifle from US lineage...

Both rifles are good platforms, but each has it's limitations for use. Weight is a consideration for both, and the uber accurate ones tend to run on the heavy side.

Standardization of interchangeable parts is getting better in the AR-10 platform, but still not as "fixed" as with the smaller -15 cousin.

Your AR-10 can swap to alternate calibers with two pins, maybe a magazine.

M1A parts are limited to a very finite number of sources, and not many companies are investing in new production. "Parts are (not) parts" in either rifle, quality and tolerance in production will win out over time and use of either.

From what I gather, the only question of "absolute reliability" concerns folks who carry and use their rifles under combat conditions. For hunting or target shooting either is plenty reliable.
I went through a period where I seriously considered a Smith & Wesson MP-10 or a Springfield Armory M1A Squad Scout.
Both are relatively light at 7.7 lbs. for the Smith and 7.8 lbs. ( actually weighed ) for the synthetic stocked M1A Squad Scout.
Both are reported to be comparably accurate, on the order of 1.5 or better MOA for five rounds with ammo they like.
The biggest drawback for the M1A is it's is stocked for iron sights. Mounting a scope on a good tough mount is both expensive and places the scope very high over the rifle, or one can use a scout scope.
The M&P will take anything in a scope, but it sits very high on the rifle, which is bad for a guy that tends to cant his rifle when shooting.... Their triggers suck as well.
To me the M1A handles/feels better. So I gambled and bought one even with my concerns for it requiring a scout scope.
It has worked out very well. The Leupold VX2, 1.5-4X Scout Scope is alot sharper and more useful than I ever thought it would be. Probably due to the 6-6.9 inch eye relief vs. the standard ER of 9-14 inches that most classic scout scopes have.
It shoots regularly under 1.5 MOA with several of my handloads. And the trigger is so good, it has the honor of being the only rifle I've bought in over 25 yrs. that didn't need a trigger job. Very consistant and very crisp.
So, I'm happy with my choice. E

So, you got the squad scout and not the long one? That was the one that interests me. I doubt that I would hunt with it. I like my bolts for that. I think it would just be a fun rifle to shoot some. I have a 550-yard range here at the house to play on.

Seriously? Both were designed in the 1950's. The M14 continues to serve. The AR-10 never made the grade.

I don't have a scale handy, but my synthetic scout/squad feels a lot lighter that the book weight. Of course, a loaded mag add some to but I wouldn't count the weight of ammo against the gun.

What do you mean it never made the grade?

Chu Lia Vietnam 1968-69 I was assigned to operate the base garbage dump, directing where stuff was to be dumped and then covering it over with a dozer. I pretty much sat on the dozer directing traffic and covering garbage all day, secondary duty was to keep civilian scavengers in line and shoot marauding dogs as there was a out break of rabies.

I was assigned a M-16 and it hung off the aircleaner all day until needed and it worked well in the mornings but as dirt sifted into it through the day it became guess work if it would keep firing, sometimes it took a few round(up to seven once) to put down the dogs. I went to the armorer and he gave me a M-14 and ammo can full of rounds. Problem solved both reliability and knock down power on the dog. It was heavy though and I packed a shotgun on patrols.

My experience with M-14's in Viet Nam: Heavy, your field load of ammo was limited. The sights frequently would not stay tight. Few men tried to get a true zeroe and keep it. Overall they were reliable, but had need for frequent checks and minor repairs. Ejector failure and cracked stock I experienced. My limited experience with M-16's found them more accurate and easier to shoot. General cleaning seemed to be the only maintanance usually needed. Ammo amount that could be carried was almost doubled.

Pretty rare for me to see an AR10 that works flawlessly.

Can't remember seeing an AR15 that didn't.

Two very different animals.






Travis

M1A is pretty picky about maintenance. There are a lot of critical contact points that tend to shift. The gas system gets dirty and the volume changes, making the POI drift. I still have 2, but rarely shoot them because each shot is a countdown to re-bedding and cleaning. 5000 rounds and the barrels become suspect.
The AR15 is less needy. Bolt cam, and keeping the gas rings checked is pretty minor. If you have issues it is pretty easy to change out the bolt assembly and go. Barrels, especially the chrome lined flavor last a lot longer. Reloading is 1/2 as expensive.
I shot service rifle for many years, and on a fluke I started using the A2 with 1/7 twist in 1986 when they were adopted. There were very few 5.56 on the line, but that changed really fast. I have a place in my heart for the M14, but the AR15 platform is more shooting, and less rifle drama. I like to shoot, and in some ways I hate dealing with guns. Maintenance time takes away trigger time.

Unlike the M14 (and the FAL and G3) the AR-10 was never adopted by any country in quantity. Bad timing, among other things. There's nothing wrong with the design.

The AR had come a loooong way since the early years. I would guess there are more AR-10 (and variants) currently in military use than the M14. I like both designs for different reasons. I wouldn't refuse a older M14 if someone wanted to give me one.

Who uses the AR-10 (or variants), besides the U.S. M110?

The US uses at least two variants, the M110 and the Mk. 11.
Britain and New Zealand use the LMT 308.

I own a couple of them, and of the two problems I had with them, one was purely ammo related, and the other had an extractor spring go bad. With the problems fixed they have both been totally reliable.

I don't know of anyone who shoots huge volumes of ammo with them. Maybe they'd come up short if you had to shoot 500 zombies without cleaning, but I don't know anyone who does that

One day at the range I saw a guy with an FAL fighting malfunctions. I was tempted to walk over and adjust his gas regulator, but I doubt he would have appreciated it

Yes, I got the Squad Scout. I didn't want, or need, a longer barreled version. The Squad Scout comes with a scout scope style scope base. All I had to buy for a scope were some rings.
I've put over 500 yds. through the rifle with no changes of zero at all. That includes the iron sights, BTW. You can tighten them up if you won't need to rezero your rifle for different ranges if you wish.
The only problems I've had were one reloaded case that wasn't fully resized enough, and another that had been fully resized too many times resulting in a head separation.
If I just wanted to shoot military surplus type ammo, I'd buy either the Squad Scout or the Socom 16. The biggest difference is in the sights. The Socom has a much larger rear aperature opening and a much wider front blade which shows up at night. E

Thanks for all of the info, guys.

I have owned a match M1A owned this in 1981, an FAL made in Brazil imported by Springfield, more recently a Smith MP 10, a Gen 2 DPMS hunter, and a Ruger Sr-762. The FAL had a built in bipod and was heavy but in my opinion was the best of the lot. It was however a heavy SOB and the dust cover not condusive to a scope. That was an accurate gun as well. The second best is a current Ruger SR-762, I have no idea regards the reliability, have only fired it less than 500 rounds but it is accurate and has fired at every pull of the trigger, the M1 all I remember is that it was a longer gun, and somewhat less handy. The Smith MP 10 is a good gun was 2.5MOA or so and the DPMS was an abortion.

If you need a good 308 consider the Knight or the recently released Daniel defense. Of course I am not a big gun guru or internet Ninja and cannot wax poetic regards a wood vs plastic gun, I simply keep em or sell em, depending. I still got the Ruger even with its chit factory trigger it shoots well.

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