PDA

View Full Version : Ca needs


Ironballs
12-22-2005, 8:21 PM
a decent ca legal 308 battle rifle

not an antique at 14 pounds (m1a), not a finnike design (ar10) or some neutered rifle (fal that must be broken open to reload)...

we need a rifle stock that will accept detachable mags but from a lightweight modern design- Something new? a simple endevour i would think... even if some of the old guard simply modified their trigger group/design to change the stock... something nice

i am looking for a semi .308 and am just dissapointed with my choices-

1911_Mitch
12-22-2005, 9:02 PM
M1A is no antique.

M1A sounds like your best option.

Custom Scout or SOCOM.

Weighs in at ~9-11 lbs., about the same as an AR with optics and light.

However, ammo is heavier, but that is a good thing.

Stevil
12-22-2005, 9:20 PM
Let's see what comes out of Kel-Tec at the shot show, a SU-14 maybe? :)

WallySparx
12-22-2005, 10:01 PM
fal doesn't need to be broken open either.

GTKrockeTT
12-22-2005, 11:45 PM
M1A is no antique.

M1A sounds like your best option.

Custom Scout or SOCOM.

Weighs in at ~9-11 lbs., about the same as an AR with optics and light.

However, ammo is heavier, but that is a good thing.

what stock is that again on the first SOCOM?

Pulsar
12-23-2005, 1:03 AM
Well I know you can get the remington 742 in 308, and it's easy to get ten rounders for it, if that counts. And I've gotta reiterate, FAL does not need to be broken open to be fed by a stripper.

anotherted
12-23-2005, 7:43 AM
M14 an antique, eh?......thats laughable. If they're simply antiques, why is the US re-issuing them in Iraq as DMRs? Stop-gap measure or not, they are kicking *** over there. These are the finest semi-auto's you can own. Accuracy, reliability, ease of dissasembly, etc...I love mine, the army loves theres, 'nuff said.

Ted

WallySparx
12-23-2005, 8:07 AM
m14s becoming antiques would be great, if only because then we wouldn't need to dros 'em anymore.

Ironballs
12-23-2005, 8:13 AM
i knew i was stepping on toes/ burning sacred cows... (but i like the ak over the m16, and i love my keltec over the m16 as well, so my tastes are diff. than some)

M1A works, but the weight and the large/long op rod i am not a fan of (sold my loaded m1a years ago).

the fall using stripper clips (not breakopen) sounds good (forgot),... may start scouting one out/researching

still, a modification of trigger set on a diff stock and still taking mags would be prefferable imo

delloro
12-23-2005, 8:37 AM
AK predates the M14, guess some antiques are still OK?

of course only pedophiles like AKs, only Green Party types like keltecs, and people who don't like M14s or M1As think Hillary is attractive.

Ooops! Hope I'm not stepping on any toes or burning any sacred cows! 'Cause we sure don't mean to be doing that, do we?

DrjonesUSA
12-23-2005, 8:52 AM
a decent ca legal 308 battle rifle

not an antique at 14 pounds (m1a), not a finnike design (ar10) or some neutered rifle (fal that must be broken open to reload)...

we need a rifle stock that will accept detachable mags but from a lightweight modern design- Something new? a simple endevour i would think... even if some of the old guard simply modified their trigger group/design to change the stock... something nice

i am looking for a semi .308 and am just dissapointed with my choices-


1) Just checked springfield's site and the heaviest M1A is the M25 Tactical at 12.7 pounds. Both the Scout & Standard are right around 9 pounds. That's hardly "14 pounds."

2) The M1A is hardly an "antique" design. Yeah, its around 50 years old, but there haven't been any earth-shaking breakthroughs in firearms technology for about that many years or more.

3) I see you've owned an M1A but sold it due to the weight & op rod. What specifically don't you like about the oprod? Further, you complain about the weight; would you REALLY want to shoot a 5 pound .308?? The recoil would probably be quite uncomfortable.

AR's can be so light because the .223 is such a light round.

The .308 requires a larger, more robust rifle not only to handle the larger round (bigger round = bigger gun, no way around that) but it must have some heft to it to help soften recoil.

Finally, it seems that you are looking for a SHTF rifle.

Well, if the stuff hits the fan, people probably aren't going to be concerned about the legalities of your rifle configuration.

Just a thought.....not advocating anything illegal of course..... :)

DrjonesUSA
12-23-2005, 8:54 AM
what stock is that again on the first SOCOM?


Unless you buy one of the match rifles with a McMillan stock, all Springfield's synthetic stocks are USGI Fiberglass.

Nice stocks.

Ironballs
12-24-2005, 8:15 AM
well, a little research (usually goes along way) and i am thinking a dsa sa58. the stripper clip top reloading seams reasonable... but still considering the socom (i still have mags from my sold m1a... (I knew long ago to never sell mags JIC cally went crazy as it has).

I am really not out to bash whats available,... just that i want something different... and believe a new solution should be brought to market-

that said, i do not see the money value in what i would have to pay for a new CA dsa, or the aggregious CA rates for the m1a...

that said, i sold a rifle yesterday, and found this last night, locally enough i suppose, and no tax which is my goal in life:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192542
i mulled it over a bit, knowing my favorite rifle of all is the styer scout (worth the premium imo)... so on to the socom i guess- deposit sent :)
contradiction contradiction... not my most thought out thread or post =)

delloro
12-24-2005, 8:31 AM
...contradiction contradiction... not my most thought out thread or post =)

yes, perhaps, but think how boring the internet would be if everybody thought their posts through.... :)

colossians323
12-24-2005, 8:38 AM
well, a little research (usually goes along way) and i am thinking a dsa sa58. the stripper clip top reloading seams reasonable... but still considering the socom (i still have mags from my sold m1a... (I knew long ago to never sell mags JIC cally went crazy as it has).

I am really not out to bash whats available,... just that i want something different... and believe a new solution should be brought to market-

that said, i do not see the money value in what i would have to pay for a new CA dsa, or the aggregious CA rates for the m1a...

that said, i sold a rifle yesterday, and found this last night, locally enough i suppose, and no tax which is my goal in life:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192542
i mulled it over a bit, knowing my favorite rifle of all is the styer scout (worth the premium imo)... so on to the socom i guess- deposit sent :)
contradiction contradiction... not my most thought out thread or post =)

That is quite a find, he is basically giving it to you.

Pulsar
12-24-2005, 10:14 PM
2) The M1A is hardly an "antique" design. Yeah, its around 50 years old, but there haven't been any earth-shaking breakthroughs in firearms technology for about that many years or more.

I challenge you to look at the G11 by H&K, I say it's a crying shame it never really went into major service, but the reunification of germany kind of strapped the german government for cash.

bwiese
12-24-2005, 11:30 PM
, not a finnike design (ar10)

I think you mean "finicky"???

Pray tell, how is an AR10 "finicky"? They work JUST FINE. Some are even in service right now in less-than-comfortable, dirty places, doing their job. (I'd originally written, "...quietly doing their job" but 308s can be a bit noisy ;-) )

My AR10 and all the AR10s I've shot have digested all brands of 308 ammo without malfunction. Armalite has a good rep for product support, too. [BTW: the AR10-T is designed solely for Fed Gold Medal Match 168gr 308 ammo, and may act up on other ammo. This was the spec for this specific "-T" rifle variant; all other AR10s should eat all quality ammo just fine.]

You're just spouting some internet legends. Next time ask folks that know.

Ironballs
12-25-2005, 7:19 AM
Pray tell, how is an AR10 "finicky"? They work JUST FINE. Some are even in service right now in less-than-comfortable, dirty places, doing their job. (I'd originally written, "...quietly doing their job" but 308s can be a bit noisy ;-) )

My AR10 and all the AR10s I've shot have digested all brands of 308 ammo without malfunction. Armalite has a good rep for product support, too. [BTW: the AR10-T is designed solely for Fed Gold Medal Match 168gr 308 ammo, and may act up on other ammo. This was the spec for this specific "-T" rifle variant; all other AR10s should eat all quality ammo just fine.]

You're just spouting some internet legends. Next time ask folks that know.

both my bushie and armalite shoot accurately and reliably, for about 200-250rd,.. after that ftf, fte and all kinds of problems... a deep/extensive clean and i was good for another 200-250 before problems again. That design is just a foul-o-matic imo, and a rifle should be able to be fielded and shoot extensively without cleaning imo,... thus my affinity for the ak over the ar for example (and even the keltec for that matter)-

and my armalite ar10 had no foward assist, so when things got sticky, it meant down time and not push on through- Thus, finicky imo
happy holidays

anotherted
12-25-2005, 7:25 AM
My M14 is on around 1K+ without a cleaning. About 7K total. Runs like a champ.

MaceWindu
12-25-2005, 8:13 AM
M14 an antique, eh?......thats laughable. If they're simply antiques, why is the US re-issuing them in Iraq as DMRs? Stop-gap measure or not, they are kicking *** over there. These are the finest semi-auto's you can own. Accuracy, reliability, ease of dissasembly, etc...I love mine, the army loves theres, 'nuff said.

Ted


Bingo!

Mace

Ironballs
12-25-2005, 8:23 AM
My M14 is on around 1K+ without a cleaning. About 7K total. Runs like a champ.

yes, thats the rep on the m14- keeps eating... only downside being weight imo, but there are some lighter/handier versions out there like the socom (we shall see i guess)

not that i like to torture and test my firearms, (to the contraty i am usually extremely gentle to them) but i want one to be fully capeable if deployed with only the firearm and ammo, where cleaning is to promote longevity and maintenance, rather then a necessity to function. Firearms should take a licking and keep on ticking, and not need a time out for a skinned knee or sand in the shoe...

this is why:
ak over ar
glock over all else

Pryde
12-25-2005, 2:50 PM
I would avoid the socom, I know that I too may be burning sacred cows but from what I've read on other forums the socom is a piece of crap. I'll leave you to go research the reasons yourself but there are plenty why. Any DSA product you buy will be superbly crafted, they make all thier stuff from the original Steyr FN-FAL tooling on a forged all heat treated receiver which is all 100% american made (which is more than you can say for springfield and thier castings).

As far as the antique AK vs M14, the M14 was built obsolete from a military standpoint. The M14 is a WW2 era rifle issued in the post WW2 era. The M14 debacle was pretty much the whole reason why the springfield armory was originally shut down. Against all reason the US ordnance department chose a rifle that was grossly unsuited for the needs of American troops. Yes it is a very accurate rifle with a great trigger, but in the jungles of Vietnam, it was vastly outgunned by the select fire AK47. The AK systems still works great in modern warfare thats why so many countries still choose to equip it. I realize that many people are going to say "look they still the M14 as a DMR in today's military and people love it" but you also have to realize that the M14 DMR is an intermediary weapons system because they needed a rifle to fill the role and the M14 was available. In the next few years the M14 will be once again phased out and replaced with a new DMR rifle built upon the AR platform; as of right now it is already happening with the USMC.

TonyM
12-25-2005, 4:46 PM
I would avoid the socom, I know that I too may be burning sacred cows but from what I've read on other forums the socom is a piece of crap. I'll leave you to go research the reasons yourself but there are plenty why.

90+% of that (mis)information is spread by guys that are hung up on inches (barrel length), or price. If you read the threads they almost always boil down to comments about "I'd never get a barrel less than 18 inches" or "I'm not paying that much for an M1A".

I've shot mine alot this year, not one problem. Mine came packed with USGI Parts, alot better than the regular models that people consider more affordable. easily 90% of the posts I've read by actual owners have had results like me. Feels just like my Glocks, Everyone that talks trash about them doesn't own one and only has second hand information, or claims to have "shot my friends" with bad results.


Gotta love the internet for hearsay. "Don't buy that <insert product here>. I read from some guy that I don't know, that probably works for a competitor that it really sucks. It's gotta be true, I mean why would someone on the internet lie or try to force their opinion on anyone?"

heuer5
12-25-2005, 5:00 PM
I own two M1A's, and with 19 rounds in the magazine and a full length barrel they are heavy rifles. I prefer them to the AR series (I have owned an AR in the past), but remember all commercial "M14" type rifles are clones.

A real M14 reciever with GI parts put together by a competent armorer is an excellent rifle. The clones are also very good rifles, but except for LRB, Smith (forged), and Poly's reciever geometry can vary.

I ordered "Different's" book a week ago, and hopefully it will answer many of my questions about the SOCOM.

The SOCOM models have a variety of different bolt's used in production. Many SOCOM rifles have been shipped with "cast" bolts. Almost all standard "loaded" model rifles have been shipped with forged bolts.

Pryde
12-25-2005, 5:02 PM
Well actually what I heard was that most of the problems people had was with the gas system. The gas system on the SOCOM is not the same gas system on the M1A but rather a modified one of new design. Supposedly the problems with this new system have yet to be worked out fully.

Then again this is just what I have heard, I've never handled a SOCOM myself, I'm not big on the M1A. My original point stands that DSA FALs are finely made 100% US rifles and you cannot go wrong with purchasing one.

heuer5
12-25-2005, 5:05 PM
They did have problems with early models of the gas system, but from all reports this has been resolved for quite some time.

About bolt ID:

From Different's book:

Bolt - Springfield Armory, Inc. bolts are typically marked 7790186-SA on the first line and A00030, B00048 or F00059 or similar number on the second line. They may have markings such as D and M3 on the rear end and A9 or B1 on the bottom surface. The letter A prefix for the number under 7790186-SA means the bolt was cast then finish machined. The letter B prefix for the number under 7790186-SA means the bolt was machined from bar stock. The letter F prefix for the number under 7790186-SA means the bolt is forged. See 1987 Springfield Armory, Inc. Recall Notice for additional markings. M1A bolts are not made by metal injection molding. Around receiver serial number 165XXX, Springfield Armory, Inc. factory installed bolts have letters and numerals with a taller and thinner font than the style found on USGI M14 bolts.

There are a lot of "A" marked bolts showing up on SOCOM models.

heuer5
12-25-2005, 5:10 PM
P.S.

I don't like AR rifles, but if someone were to produce an AR 10 reciever similar to certain recievers that have appeared on this site I would buy one.

The DPMS review in American Rifleman's DopeBag was interesting.

heuer5
12-25-2005, 5:12 PM
P.S.S.

On a M14 clone I prefer a 22 inch barrel.

If I were going to purchase a short barreled M14 clone I would set it up like Mace's.

bwiese
12-25-2005, 7:12 PM
Ironballs...

both my bushie and armalite shoot accurately and reliably, for about 200-250rd,.. after that ftf, fte and all kinds of problems... a deep/extensive clean and i was good for another 200-250 before problems again. That design is just a foul-o-matic imo, and a rifle should be able to be fielded and shoot extensively without cleaning imo,... thus my affinity for the ak over the ar for example (and even the keltec for that matter)-


The platform doesn't have a problem. You do. I'm not jumping on you but it's most likely you're doing something wrong - given you're having the same problems spread over two different rifle brands (Bushie and Armalite) and variants (AR15 and AR10) that hundreds of thousands of people are using just fine.

Most problems with ARs fall into the categories below, and yours statisticallly are likely to be amonsgst these. When I see these problems at the range, I get these rifles going just fine. Any AR should be able to run a couple thousand rounds in a day or two without problem ...

Poor/incorrect lubrication. Use BreakFree CLP. Bolt/carrier should be 'wet'. Follow the Army manual.

Poor cleaning. Chamber brush should be used to clean chamber and behind bolt lugs in barrel extension. Again, follow Army manual for cleaning. Clean bolt periodically, detail stripping and cleaning/lubricating w/BreakFree CLP.

Crappy ammo/reloads affecting extraction/ejection. "Light" rounds - like the British SS109 stuff intended for the SA80 - can cause cycling problems.
Always diagnose problems with M193, M855 ammo from quality vendors like Fed, IMI, etc. Orig Winchester Q3131 ammo can be problematic (unlike newer Winchester Q3131A ammo).

Poor aftermarket non-USGI magazines, or mags with weak springs, or mags misassembled after cleaning/disassembly (with springs installed backwards).

Cleaning gas tube and leaving debris in system (Q-Tip or patch fibers, etc.)

(Not on your Bushie or Armalite) Off-brand barrels without chrome-lined milspec chambers.

Mis-reassembly of multiple ARs, mixing action springs btwn CARs and regular ARs.


Only after all the above are addressed should you start looking for other faults (misaligned gas block, weak action springs, etc.) These latter items are more common in 'parts guns' and those from bottom-tier discount vendors with no-name parts. In no way can the 'platform' be blamed.

My seven ARs (one AR10) work just fine.


and my armalite ar10 had no foward assist, so when things got sticky, it meant down time and not push on through- Thus, finicky imo


Yes, I agree the AR10 should have FBA. Forward bolt assist indeed a useful thing for desparate emergencies. But for normal use you should never use it. If your round can't chamber, your chamber's either too dirty or you have a defective round and should cycle again and rechamber a new, nondistorted round. (A round that can't be chambered without difficulty could be dangerous.)

Please download the M16 Tech Manual and user manuals from AR15.COM. Follow those diagnostic steps and you'll do well.

Feel free to describe your problems more fully and I (and/or others here) can help you get your ARs "talking" continuously without problems.

Ironballs
12-25-2005, 7:58 PM
The platform doesn't have a problem.

respectfully, i dissagree. It fouls itself to the point of malfunction. And then it is way more difficult to clean than most other rifles... often necessitating a hangar wire to scrape clean the foward star pattern on the bolt. It really gets baked on hard in a short time (200-250rds).

I cleaned to spec, often with a few GI buddies, always swapping tips for the difficult job of cleaning an AR. Their luck with their issue rifles was no better than my luck with my civies. Strangely, of the 3 i shot with most,... none bought an ar post duty, and my closest buddy as the armalite ar180b and a keltec... loves them both...

design/platform problem imo with regards to duration of fire between cleanings- one that is known from the first day of issue to now

Sgt Raven
12-25-2005, 7:59 PM
Yes, I agree the AR10 should have FBA. Forward bolt assist indeed a useful thing for desparate emergencies. But for normal use you should never use it.

Any AR that doesn't have a FA can be cleared by stripping the mag, hold by the forearm, and slam the butt into the ground. This worked on the original M16s and will work with the AR10s.

heuer5
12-25-2005, 8:05 PM
The DPMSAP4LR-308 has a pretty neat FA.

Sgt Raven
12-25-2005, 8:17 PM
As far as the antique AK vs M14, the M14 was built obsolete from a military standpoint. The M14 is a WW2 era rifle issued in the post WW2 era. The M14 debacle was pretty much the whole reason why the springfield armory was originally shut down. Against all reason the US ordnance department chose a rifle that was grossly unsuited for the needs of American troops. Yes it is a very accurate rifle with a great trigger, but in the jungles of Vietnam, it was vastly outgunned by the select fire AK47.

The M14 was designed for the cold war European theater not VN. It shouldnít have been scrapped because of VN. We could have supported 2 MBRs an AR/AK like AW for theaters like VN and a full power MBR for the other theaters. Since we still field 7.62x51 in medium MGs they would need both 5.56 and 7.62 ammo in the system.

I think the main problem with the AR system could be fixed with a change of the upper to something like the POF or HK416 system so you donít have gas going directly into the action/ bolt.

heuer5
12-25-2005, 8:28 PM
I think the main problem with the AR system could be fixed with a change of the upper to something like the POF or HK416 system so you donít have gas going directly into the action/ bolt.

This was one of the reasons I got rid of my Bushie. The rifle probably FTF once, and it was the post ban A2 HBAR XM15 and was very accurate. I just hated cleaning the rifle. I find the M14 type rifle easier to keep spotless. Just my two cents.

GI box magazine were better made, but AR mags are meant to be dispossable and are much lighter.

I would love to see a CA legal AR 10.

The latest issue of American Rifleman has a sweet DPMS 308.

heuer5
12-25-2005, 8:37 PM
This and the Stoner are the future:


PANTHER™ LONG RANGE 308 C
16” AP4 CARBINE (RFA2-308AP4)
Barrel:
• 16” Heavy barrel, with a mock AP4 contour
• 4140 Chrome-moly steel
• 6 grooves, right-handed 1x10 twist, button rifled
• 308 Panther Flash Hider

Chamber:
• .308 Winchester

Method of Operation:
• Gas operated rotating bolt

Bolt & Carrier:
• 8620 chrome-plated steel bolt carrier, heat treated per Mil Spec.
• Phosphated 8620 steel bolt, heat treated and plated per Mil Spec.

Sights:
• Standard A2 front sight assembly
• Detachable rear sight (FT-RS)

Weight:
• Empty - 8.5 lbs

Length:
• Extended - 35.6”
• Collapsed - 31.6"

Upper Receiver:
• A3-style Flattop, forged
• Thick walled, extruded from 6066-T6 aluminum
• Hard coat anodized per Mil Spec and Teflon coated black
• Snag free design, smooth side look
• Dust cover
• Shell deflector
• Round forward assist
• Right hand ejection
• Standard sight base

Lower Receiver:
• Milled from a solid billet of 6061-T6 aluminum
• Hard coat anodized per Mil Spec and Teflon coated black
• Standard A-15 trigger group
• Integral trigger guard
• Aluminum magazine release button

Stock:
• AP4 - 6 position, telescoping fiber reinforced polymer

Handguards:
• Ribbed aluminum free float
• 2.24” Outside diameter
• 7.25” in length

Note:
Bipod not included.
Each rifle comes with 2- 19 rd. Steel Magazines, 1- Nylon Web Sling and 1- Cleaning Kit



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




This rifle is unavailable for online order, please call DPMS or your local FFL Dealer to purchase this rifle.

MSRP: $1249.00

Note: The JARD Trigger will not ft in the DPMS line of
LR-308 rifles!

Pryde
12-26-2005, 4:19 AM
The M14 was designed for the cold war European theater not VN. It shouldn’t have been scrapped because of VN. We could have supported 2 MBRs an AR/AK like AW for theaters like VN and a full power MBR for the other theaters. Since we still field 7.62x51 in medium MGs they would need both 5.56 and 7.62 ammo in the system.

I think the main problem with the AR system could be fixed with a change of the upper to something like the POF or HK416 system so you don’t have gas going directly into the action/ bolt.

The 2 major reasons why the M14 was adopted was-

(1)- The US gov felt that it would be cheaper to produce because the old Garand tooling could be used. (This later proved to be untrue and caused quite a finanicial burden)

(2)- The hardheaded gun snobs at the US department of ordnance could not envision the usefulness of an "assault rifle". Despite the spectacular performance of the German Stg 44 in WW2, the bureaucrats felt that it was cheaply made junk because it was not machined and was made with stampings and weldings. All those years before Vietnam, the british and NATO had told America over and over again about the usefulness of a light intermediate cartridge, America would not hear such blasphemy and pushed heavily to keep the 30-06 round. American ordnance officials felt that full auto was a "waste of ammunition" and that a weapon was junk unless it had an effective range of 500+. The M14's main nato competitors, the FN-FAL and the British bullpup (forget the name) were both originally chambered for light intermediate rounds. The USA pretty much owned NATO at the time so they won out and the 7.62x51, a round that nobody else wanted was adopted. The brits and the rest of NATO grudgingly adopted the FAL in 7.62x51 and America happily adopted the M-14. 20 some odd years later, the US found out just how wrong they were about the effectiveness of 7.62x51 as a primary military cartridge and switched to the 5.56 and M16 platform.

bwiese
12-26-2005, 9:33 AM
respectfully, i dissagree. It fouls itself to the point of malfunction. And then it is way more difficult to clean than most other rifles... often necessitating a hangar wire to scrape clean the foward star pattern on the bolt. It really gets baked on hard in a short time (200-250rds).



Well, you guys are certainly having 'unique' problems. When you are having problems that hundreds of thousands of folks aren't, a bit of self-examination might be warranted. This is not a design problem.

Are these factory guns or did you build them up from various parts?
Do they have chrome-lined barrels with milspec chambers?
Using good quality ammo?
Using USGI mags? (or, in AR10 case, using Armalite factory mags?)
Using BreakFree CLP as lube?

Your bolt should be 'wet' in the bolt carrier, and there should be lube behind the lugs in receiver extension.

Pulsar
12-26-2005, 10:49 AM
respectfully, i dissagree. It fouls itself to the point of malfunction. And then it is way more difficult to clean than most other rifles... often necessitating a hangar wire to scrape clean the foward star pattern on the bolt. It really gets baked on hard in a short time (200-250rds).

I cleaned to spec, often with a few GI buddies, always swapping tips for the difficult job of cleaning an AR. Their luck with their issue rifles was no better than my luck with my civies. Strangely, of the 3 i shot with most,... none bought an ar post duty, and my closest buddy as the armalite ar180b and a keltec... loves them both...

design/platform problem imo with regards to duration of fire between cleanings- one that is known from the first day of issue to now


I hate to sound condescending, but a rather large ammount of our military men and women don't take care of there AR's properly. I don't admit to knowing a lot about the AR series, but a buddy of mine was a USMC armorer, and he has told me many many stories of troops who don't lubricate and clean there weapons properly. He had to yell at troops almost on a daily basis for putting lube in the gas ports.

Still all that said, it does point to an obvious defeciency in the AR design, or a defienciny in basic training, I haven't decided which, but I'm leaning towards the AR being hte problem. It's too complicated to keep clean and functional, when compaired to say the AK, which can take massive punishment and still fire, albeit with much reduced accuracy compaired to the AR series.

Ironballs
12-26-2005, 11:45 AM
Are these factory guns? Yes
Do they have chrome-lined barrels with milspec chambers? Yes
Using good quality ammo? yes
Using USGI mags? yes
Using BreakFree CLP as lube? yes, as well as tetra/hopes and some others as I tried to sort out the problem, until I decided it was platform imo

My fam. that served (nam) has an even lower opinion of the ar than I do...
I donít understand the stubbornness to defend this platform so blindly...
I ask you, in your flawless experience with your magical ar, how many rounds can you fire before failure (or how many in an average range session). I ask, because if you strip and clean every 75 rounds, that may explain your experiences...

as a certifiable gun nut, I can assure you I was not the problem, unless you consider that I ask too much from my ar (a standard which I found many other platforms can deliver)-

DrjonesUSA
12-26-2005, 3:39 PM
I challenge you to look at the G11 by H&K, I say it's a crying shame it never really went into major service, but the reunification of germany kind of strapped the german government for cash.

If you could please post a link, I'd be happy to check it out.

That said, if it really was such an "earth-shattering" breakthrough of a design, it wouldn't have ended up in the circular file of history, would it? ;)

DrjonesUSA
12-26-2005, 3:40 PM
My M14 is on around 1K+ without a cleaning. About 7K total. Runs like a champ.


Just curious, but why would you want to do that to a rifle?

Are you specifically performing a torture test on it, or do you just not feel like properly maintaining your expensive rifle?? :confused:

DrjonesUSA
12-26-2005, 3:50 PM
I would avoid the socom, I know that I too may be burning sacred cows but from what I've read on other forums the socom is a piece of crap. I'll leave you to go research the reasons yourself but there are plenty why. Any DSA product you buy will be superbly crafted, they make all thier stuff from the original Steyr FN-FAL tooling on a forged all heat treated receiver which is all 100% american made (which is more than you can say for springfield and thier castings).

As far as the antique AK vs M14, the M14 was built obsolete from a military standpoint. The M14 is a WW2 era rifle issued in the post WW2 era. The M14 debacle was pretty much the whole reason why the springfield armory was originally shut down. Against all reason the US ordnance department chose a rifle that was grossly unsuited for the needs of American troops. Yes it is a very accurate rifle with a great trigger, but in the jungles of Vietnam, it was vastly outgunned by the select fire AK47. The AK systems still works great in modern warfare thats why so many countries still choose to equip it. I realize that many people are going to say "look they still the M14 as a DMR in today's military and people love it" but you also have to realize that the M14 DMR is an intermediary weapons system because they needed a rifle to fill the role and the M14 was available. In the next few years the M14 will be once again phased out and replaced with a new DMR rifle built upon the AR platform; as of right now it is already happening with the USMC.



1) The guys on www.m-14forum.com (who obviously know just a little bit about M14's ;) ) have no beef with the SOCOM. In fact, I've never read of any major issues with the gun and will probably end up owning one some day. I was skeptical of it at first because it uses a non-standard gas system due to the short length, but I've only read positive reports.

As always, 99% of the "problems" I read about were 100% the fault of the user; poor cleaning/maintenance, improper ammo, etc.


2) I fail to see how the fact that the M14 is an older ("antique" to use your term) design automatically makes it a poor weapon.

On the contrary, the M14 is based on the legendary M1 design. The M14 has definitely proven its worth as one of the finest battle rifles in the world, right up there with the FAL & its big brother the M1.


3) The M14 IS a select-fire weapon, just like the AK. The fact that you don't even know that major fact about the rifle causes me to suspect the truth/accuracy of everything you post, and everyone else should take your posts with a grain of salt too.


4) The AK is, by your standards, an "antique design" as well, having been adopted by the Russians in 1949. It is about as old as the M14, if not older. (IIRC, the M14 was adopted in 1957).

Why does the AK get a pass in your eyes, but not the M14?


Further, I don't believe the AK can really be compared to the M14 as I don't believe the AK is a true "battle rifle" as it fires an intermediate sized cartridge, not a true, full-sized rifle round. I believe the AK is actually properly termed an "assault rifle."

DrjonesUSA
12-26-2005, 3:55 PM
I own two M1A's, and with 19 rounds in the magazine and a full length barrel they are heavy rifles. I prefer them to the AR series (I have owned an AR in the past), but remember all commercial "M14" type rifles are clones.[/b]

And anything that isn't a Colt isn't really an M4 or AR-15. ;) What's your point?


A real M14 reciever with GI parts put together by a competent armorer is an excellent rifle. The clones are also very good rifles, but except for LRB, Smith (forged), and Poly's reciever geometry can vary.


The Springfields are fine rifles too, especially if you don't want to or can't afford to spend WELL OVER $2K for an M1A from one of the other makers.



I ordered "Different's" book a week ago, and hopefully it will answer many of my questions about the SOCOM.



You should get Duff's book too. It is excellent. :)

DrjonesUSA
12-26-2005, 4:00 PM
Using BreakFree CLP as lube?

Your bolt should be 'wet' in the bolt carrier, and there should be lube behind the lugs in receiver extension.


Bill:

Is BreakFree mandated for the AR, or will any quality CLP do?

I like Eezox myself, which is a very nice CLP. Anything wrong with that stuff?

I'd hate to have to buy a separate CLP just for my AR....

heuer5
12-26-2005, 4:49 PM
:) And anything that isn't a Colt isn't really an M4 or AR-15. What's your point?

What's the point? You need to spend more time on the M14 forum. Many Mil Spec scope mounts will not fit an M1A rifle because the geometry is off. (By the way, Colt lost there law suit with Bushmaster to use the name M4 so that point is moot.) Reciever geometry is very important when it comes to a M14 rifle. Many manufactures will use recievers that are off just a hair, because the recievers are just to expensive to scrap. Armscorp has done this in the past. :)



The Springfields are fine rifles too, especially if you don't want to or can't afford to spend WELL OVER $2K for an M1A from one of the other makers.

No other maufacture porduces an M1A. M1A is the trademark of SA INC, which origially was Mr. elmer Balance's.




You should get Duff's book too. It is excellent. :)

You should get Joe Poyer's :)

heuer5
12-26-2005, 4:52 PM
:) :p :) Now I know that a Colt M4 and a Bushmaster M4 may not be the same, but you can now call them the same.

BUSHMASTER WINS TRADEMARK CASE BROUGHT BY COLT DEFENSE LLC.

Windham, ME (December 8th, 2005) - Richard Dyke, Chairman and principal stockholder of Bushmaster Firearms, is pleased with a December 6 decision of the United States District Court in Maine granting summary judgment for Bushmaster in a trademark case brought by Colt Defense, LLC. In the case, Colt accused Bushmaster of infringing the ďM4Ē trademark and the trade dress of the M4, both of which Colt claimed it owned to the exclusion of others in the industry. In addition to denying Coltís infringement claims, the Court granted judgment for Bushmaster on its claim for cancellation of Coltís federal trademark registration for the ďM4Ē.

Dyke said he is pleased, not only for Bushmaster, but for the entire firearms industry. ďColt has for years made all sorts of claims as to rights it asserted belonged only to it,Ē he said. ďAnd this case clearly shows Colt has been overstating its rights. In this case, the Court determined that the right to use the M4 term and to sell firearms that look like the M4 type, are rights that belong to the industry, not just Colt.Ē

The Courtís order affirmed a prior recommended decision of a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the case. Among other things, the Magistrateís decision:

Held that the M4 is a generic term which merely describes a type of firearm, and is not an identifier of Colt as a sole source for such firearms. In doing so, the decision noted that more than a dozen firearm manufacturers other than Colt have used the term M4 for years to refer to military-style carbines with collapsible buttstocks and shortened barrels. Since the M4 term is generic, the court granted judgment for Bushmaster that Coltís federal trademark registration for the M4 should be cancelled.

Dismissed Coltís claim for infringement of M4 trade dress both because the alleged trade dress is primarily non-functional and because Colt could not establish that the buying public associated the look of the M4 only with Colt.

Dismissed Coltís claims for infringement of the terms M16, CAR, MATCH TARGET, AR-15 and COMMANDO because it concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion among purchasers as to the source of Bushmasterís products.

The Court also held Colt could recover no damages on its only remaining claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

artherd
12-26-2005, 5:14 PM
I ask you, in your flawless experience with your magical ar, how many rounds can you fire before failure (or how many in an average range session). I ask, because if you strip and clean every 75 rounds, that may explain your experiences...

Typical range session with .223 ARs I've shot: 250-1000 rounds. Clearning interval: maybe every 1000-2000 rounds. I do TRY to remenber to shoot CLP in there with the bolt closed towards the end of every session.

It's messy but it RUNS. (and shoots sub-minuite groups, something the AK or most piston guns period will never ever do.)

Oh, no foward assist on my new precision AR and I personally have ~350 rounds through that withought a cleaning or addition of any lube. (previous owner shot 4000+ through it. Still prints 1/3MOA groups at 200yds. John Paul of JP Rifles is a pimp.)


The M14 is a bad idea done well (like a rear-engined Porsche.) and it has a unique beneift of being CA LEGAL!!!

But it's time has come:
We recently adopted the KAC SR-25 as the M110 SASS. About time.

heuer5
12-26-2005, 5:35 PM
The M14 is a bad idea done well (like a rear-engined Porsche.) and it has a unique beneift of being CA LEGAL!!!

But it's time has come:
We recently adopted the KAC SR-25 as the M110 SASS. About time.

Yes, just like learning to shoot with iron sights. :p

anotherted
12-26-2005, 7:43 PM
The M14 is a bad idea done well (like a rear-engined Porsche.) We recently adopted the KAC SR-25 as the M110 SASS. About time.

Please elaborate.

anotherted
12-26-2005, 7:47 PM
Just curious, but why would you want to do that to a rifle?

Are you specifically performing a torture test on it, or do you just not feel like properly maintaining your expensive rifle?? :confused:

Yes. A test. And im not doing anything to the rifle that cannot be undone. There are differences of opinion as to how to properly maintian a rifle. Im lubing it as per usual, just not cleaning the barrel or gas cylinder.

anotherted
12-26-2005, 7:55 PM
The AK systems still works great in modern warfare thats why so many countries still choose to equip it.

I think its more like there were (are) so damn many of them that they simply more convenient (read cheaper) to issue.

anotherted
12-26-2005, 8:06 PM
I was referring to the "bad idea done well" part.

BigAL
12-26-2005, 8:32 PM
Bill:

Is BreakFree mandated for the AR, or will any quality CLP do?

I like Eezox myself, which is a very nice CLP. Anything wrong with that stuff?

I'd hate to have to buy a separate CLP just for my AR....

Any good quality CLP will run fine. I use FP-10 myself. I also wanted to add that in a very dusty/sandy environment I would not hesitate to run my AR with a tiny bit of lube or even dry. The M-16/AR-15 is NOT the delicate un-reliable rifle many make it out to be.

heuer5
12-26-2005, 8:40 PM
Please elaborate.

I did not originally post this. Please see original post by artherd. He seems to not like the M14 type rifle.

Pulsar
12-26-2005, 8:54 PM
If you could please post a link, I'd be happy to check it out.

That said, if it really was such an "earth-shattering" breakthrough of a design, it wouldn't have ended up in the circular file of history, would it? ;)

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as42-e.htm

Just a quick summary of the gun and it's ammo. There's a lot more info out there on it, and even a video or two you can download.

bwiese
12-26-2005, 9:28 PM
My fam. that served (nam) has an even lower opinion of the ar than I do...


I'm not dissing your family, but many soldiers in general (esp in nonfrontline units) are really not up to par on weapons maintenance. The whole Jessica Lynch supply crew fiasco 2+ years ago shows that supply types really don't think of their weapon other than as a dress necessity.

Furthermore training & supervision and adherence to weapons mgmt rules vary widely. I suspect troops doing front-line work realtime are NOT having M16/M4 problems or we'd really hear about it.



I don’t understand the stubbornness to defend this platform so blindly...


It's not blind stubborness. You are having uncharacteristic problems and projecting a whole army's worth of trouble from your situation.

I ask you, in your flawless experience with your magical ar, how many rounds can you fire before failure (or how many in an average range session). I ask, because if you strip and clean every 75 rounds, that may explain your experiences...

No clean for 3+ days' shooting per trip to NV desert or Oregon vacation on several of my ARs over the last 6+ years. Both 16" and 20" versions. Colt and Bushmaster uppers on 'parts gun' lowers. Varying round counts per day, but anywhere from 500-1400 rounds expended over the trip couple days, with quite a bit of rapid fire. One of these sessions burned up 500 rds of Wolf ammo just for giggles, on top of 600+ rds of Fed AE and XM193. Two ARs slid into sandy gravel from truck tailgate, one got really cruddy. Blew it out, threw some CLP on the bolt + carrier and bolt extension lugs, and kept going.

I did have some front pivot pin walk on my guns with Colt lowers but that is because these had a special ball detent pivot pin instead of the Colt 'twin screw' pin on mid-90s 'Match Target' guns (these guns do not use milspec pivot pins since no detent pin/spring).

I've probably gotten, over the last 7 years, 30 people's ARs going 100% at various ranges. All involved either bad or no lube, crap magazines, crap ammo (reloads or British SS109 anemic ammo), misassembled parts (various springs exchanged), or poor cleaning + non-chromed barrel.

If you are anywhere in SF Bay area and can meet me at a range I will get your ARs going 100% (or identify the problem for repair/update).



as a certifiable gun nut, I can assure you I was not the problem, unless you consider that I ask too much from my ar (a standard which I found many other platforms can deliver)-
[/quote]

I see lotsa gun nuts that just don't lube their ARs right. They're not supposed to be dry.

Pryde
12-27-2005, 1:48 AM
1) The guys on www.m-14forum.com (who obviously know just a little bit about M14's ;) ) have no beef with the SOCOM. In fact, I've never read of any major issues with the gun and will probably end up owning one some day. I was skeptical of it at first because it uses a non-standard gas system due to the short length, but I've only read positive reports.

As I said before, I have never handled a Socom M1a, I am only relaying what I have read or heard from other people. I personally do not know how and if they malfunction I only know that it has happened to some people. Obviously people on a M14 forum are going to sing its praises and ignore any problems it might have(mind you I have never visited these forums I am just speculating), ever see regulars on the GlockTalk forums who bash glocks or like to acknowledge the fact that glocks kaboom?


2) I fail to see how the fact that the M14 is an older ("antique" to use your term) design automatically makes it a poor weapon.


When did I ever say the M14 was a poor weapon? Why are you putting words in my mouth? I said it was an obsolete weapon. Meaning it was designed for a foregone era of warfare. I happen to think it is a good and accurate gun but not particulary suited for modern combat.


On the contrary, the M14 is based on the legendary M1 design. The M14 has definitely proven its worth as one of the finest battle rifles in the world, right up there with the FAL & its big brother the M1.


I agree the FAL is one of the finest battle rifles ever designed, I don't hardly think the M14 is worthy of such distinction though. The FAL outperformed the M14 on almost all the tests the US government ran, the only reason why the M14 was adopted was because the ordnance department used thier leverage to push for the M14. I think that if the US would have gone with the FAL originally we would still be using some variant of it today in our armed forces rather than the M16.


3) The M14 IS a select-fire weapon, just like the AK. The fact that you don't even know that major fact about the rifle causes me to suspect the truth/accuracy of everything you post, and everyone else should take your posts with a grain of salt too.


The fact that you think you are so clever for pointing this out makes me smile. Only the first few years of M14 runs were made with select fire, it was quickly realized to any competent soldier that the M14 was completely uncontrollable and worthless under full auto mode. The selector was later disabled and existing ones were altered to be semi-auto only. The Army felt that since it was worthless in auto mode, having the option would only encourage troops to waste ammunition. A later auto select version of the M14 was introduced as a sort of a squad automatic weapon with pistol grip and folding bipod, but it never really took off. The M14 technically is a select fire weapon but it is not effective on full auto, the AK47 may not be the most accurate in full auto but they are controllable and can be situationally useful in that mode.

4) The AK is, by your standards, an "antique design" as well, having been adopted by the Russians in 1949. It is about as old as the M14, if not older. (IIRC, the M14 was adopted in 1957).
Why does the AK get a pass in your eyes, but not the M14?

The AK is still in use today after decades of service, its easy to chalk this up to "its cheap to produce", but Russia has spent millions on developing small arms, not as much nowadays but moreso during the cold war. You would think that they would have found something better than the Kalashnikov system now after all this time, but the fact that they haven't IMO really says something about it. The M14 is still in issue, yes. But that is only because there is nothing else to fill that role and it is not a PRIMARY issue weapon.


Further, I don't believe the AK can really be compared to the M14 as I don't believe the AK is a true "battle rifle" as it fires an intermediate sized cartridge, not a true, full-sized rifle round. I believe the AK is actually properly termed an "assault rifle."

You're 100% correct, I think I stated in my original post that the AK is an "assault rifle" and the US adopted the M14 because they did not envision the usefullness of an "assault rifle". So basically what I am saying is: the US chose to adopt the M14 a "battle rifle" (which was obsolete in the post WW2 era) instead of a "assault rifle" (the modern weapons system). "Battle rifles" have seen thier day but are no longer useful as a primary issue weapon for today's troops. The M14 does well in its role as a DM rifle but it would be entirely improper for the general issue role of the M16. I believe you can compare them and I am only comparing them as to how well they function as primary issue infantry weapons.

I really appreciate you trying to discredit me, but next time read what I say and try to understand it before flaming me. :)

50 Freak
12-27-2005, 2:10 AM
This thread boils down to this.

"My pee pee is bigger than your pee pee".

colossians323
12-27-2005, 3:52 AM
This thread boils down to this.

"My pee pee is bigger than your pee pee".
And all this time I thought it was my dad can beat up your dad.

Ironballs
12-27-2005, 9:02 PM
3 facts:

1. I drossed the socom, felt great in the hands, i can see why so many love it...

2. I may still do a dsa if i ever come accross one reasonably...

3. AR is a platform problem, that is why its inventor improved upon the design to not crap itself

Ironballs
12-27-2005, 9:32 PM
I was referring to the platform development that led stoner to the ar180 gas piston (like in the ar180b of today), rather than the gas dirty-bolt experiment of the ar15/m16 ... that is if i am not mistaken (it has been a few years since i was super into this stuff, but thats how i recall it)

heuer5
12-27-2005, 9:39 PM
My Dad gave me a canvas covered book "Small Arms of the World' a basic manual of military small arms by W.H.B. Smith and Joeseph E. Smith. This 7th edition published in 1962 has the AR 10 and the AR 15 in both .224 Winchester and .222 Remington. Cocking handles are on top of the recievers. Pretty interesting book. These must be the original Fairchild designs. Production for AR 15 is listed as Colt. AR 10 is a company in the Netherlands.

Also this book has a kick A** section on the M14.:)

heuer5
12-27-2005, 9:52 PM
My Dad bought it second hand in the late sixties, before I was born. They just don't make them like they used too. Really!

Pulsar
12-27-2005, 10:24 PM
Makes me wish I hadn't left my 83 addition back in my apartment.

Draven
12-28-2005, 12:54 AM
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as42-e.htm

Just a quick summary of the gun and it's ammo. There's a lot more info out there on it, and even a video or two you can download.


And if you do a little more research, you'll find that the G11 had swiss clockwork-like insides that were very hard to maintain and its rotating bolt needed replacement every 2000-3000 rounds.

Doesn't sound like an earth-shattering improvement to me.

C.G.
12-28-2005, 3:35 AM
Remember this commercial jingle?

"My dog's better than your dog. My dog's better than yours. My dog's better 'cause he eats Kennel Rations. My dog's better than yours"

If you do, you're old. :D

I don't remember it because I am old.:D

DrjonesUSA
12-28-2005, 12:38 PM
And if you do a little more research, you'll find that the G11 had swiss clockwork-like insides that were very hard to maintain and its rotating bolt needed replacement every 2000-3000 rounds.

Doesn't sound like an earth-shattering improvement to me.


"Swiss clock-like" parts are the very last thing you want on a weapon.

Take apart the M1A and marvel at its beauty; large parts, and not a whole lot of them. It is quite a simple design and simple is good in a weapon.

Contrast that with the AR.....yikes!

heuer5
12-28-2005, 2:09 PM
"Swiss clock-like" parts are the very last thing you want on a weapon.

Take apart the M1A and marvel at its beauty; large parts, and not a whole lot of them. It is quite a simple design and simple is good in a weapon.

Contrast that with the AR.....yikes!

I love the M1A for that reason, breaks into sub assemblies.

But... the AR does not have to be cleaned from the crown/muzzle.:)

Who hates rear take down pin springs? I do! I do!

heuer5
12-28-2005, 4:05 PM
Buffer detents and springs are worst IMHO.

I am not anti-AR, but it just wasn't for me. I had one of those springs fly from the Dining Room to the front of the Living Room one time, and would have kept going of it did not hit the front window. :)

I miss the sound the spring makes in the buffer tube when your cheek rests on it and the rifle cycles.

I like the fact the magazines were inexpensive, but you can hear the welds flex when you apply pressure with your fingers. ;)

Cheap rebuild kits too.

Draven
12-29-2005, 1:25 AM
"Swiss clock-like" parts are the very last thing you want on a weapon.

Take apart the M1A and marvel at its beauty; large parts, and not a whole lot of them. It is quite a simple design and simple is good in a weapon.

Contrast that with the AR.....yikes!

Exactly. That's why the G11 clone that H&K made for the Army ACR tests was one of the more- unpopular- weapons. The Steyr was almost as unpopular because it was just as difficult to service- you had to remove the buttstock cap, partially field stripping the weapon- to clear a jam.

Pulsar
12-29-2005, 12:32 PM
That's true of the early versions of the G11, but by the end of it's development they had worked almost all of those issues out. And it's not really the G11 I find to be earth shattering, it's the caseless ammunition. I wish I had brought my copy of "Small Arms of the World" with me (left it at my apartment). It had about 10 pages dedicated to the G11 and it's development. By the last generation they had pretty much all the kinks worked out.

saki302
12-29-2005, 1:11 PM
Caseless ammo will get its day in the sun someday.. just not anytime soon. The principle is great, but it's an idea before its time. Look how long polymer frames took to gain acceptance (they first appeared in the 1970's- VP70M).

Give it 20 years.

-Dave