Why do so many people not like the M1A/M14?

Because it beat the FAL in testing and all the pics of Rhodesians with FALs and Ian sucking the FAL's dick convinced/k/ the FAL is the end-all-be-all of battle rifles. Also Springfield M1a rifles ruined the M14's reputation.

Because that piece of plastic on top looks like shit.

It has no reason to exist when the BM 59 is better than it in every way.

Because of all the NATO Battle rifles the M14 was hot garbage with no merits

i like mine also paid only 300€

No reason to get one over a Garand if you want something with any history - you'll spend twice as much and get a worse gun if you go M14 over M1.

No reason to get one over any other 308 semi auto rifle either - it will be less accurate and probably heavier.

my local gunshop has a used one for $1300 every time I go in I want to buy it, but I think about how I would never use it.

Opinions on .308 garands?

>Not owning both

Attached: NoPingAndPing.jpg (3488x1356, 2.86M)

Good riffles, but bad price.

i bought one as my first firearm

it's heavy as shit and ammo expensive

bretty cool rifle tho

How?

eh, if anything the only .308 rifle he sucked down upon was the AR-10, and the reason why (even though the armorers may have been screaming about how) is that it just works, but the reason it died was because armalite decided to put a aluminum barrel on.

but it's the opposite of that

I don’t think it’s becase people doesn’t like it, but because it gets too much praise even though it isn’t really that much of interesting design or good platform. It’s practically just a garand That takes magazines and at the time it was introduced there was things like AK’s and FN FALS so it became pretty much obsolete from the first day it was issued.

>Good riffles, but bad price.
This. Unfortunately, many owners mistake this as personal persecution.

Yes but this is Jow Forums and if you ever dispute the price and value of someone's pet rifle, they are going to call you POORFAAAAAAG REEEEEEEEE

NANI?!

>It's development was marred with bullshit
what does this have to do with the rifle in modern civilian hands?

>SpringJew Armory is $1800
wat? you can get them for ~$1200 for the base model.

you can get an AR10 for less than a PTR91 and FAL too. It'll perform better than both as well. All battle rifles are outdated.

retard alert

fair point.

then buy a fucking bm59 and find out it's nto really that great either.

>you'll spend twice as much and get a worse gun if you go M14 over M1
elaborate. it's not true.
>it'll be less accurate than any other .308
like a G3 clone or FAL? They all have similar MOA. The M14 irons are superior though and you can buy sub-MOA w/ an M14 pretty reliably. Gl turning your PTR91 into sub-MOA without ending up with a new rifle.

>gets too much praise
yeah lots of people think it's some god-tier sniper rifle that can headshot from a mile away. Jow Forums just has its contrarians who want to pull a "akshually"

yet again we get a thread of people spouting the equivalent of Jow Forums fuddlore with a rifle they've never shot and likely never held.
The M14 was outdated the second it was issued but isn't a terrible gun. The whole "battle rifle" craze lasted almost no time at all because intermediate cartridge assault rifles quickly took over.
If you're going to get pissy about accuracy then don't ever buy any battle rifle, just buy a nice AR10. The only reason anyone buys a G3 clone, FAL, or M1A/M14 is to have fun with it. No one buys them to shoot amazing groups with with the exception of national match fags who do autistic stuff to get their rifle where it needs to be.

My dad was issued an M14 in Vietnam. He only ran on magazine through it because he was the crew chief on a Huey so mainly used an M60 but he said it's pretty uncontrollable in full auto.

It's an improvement over the Garand, but took them way too long to make the thing since it's basically take the M1 Garand and make it so it takes a box magazine.

shit magazines and extremely difficult to make accurate, all for the sake of adding completely worthless full-auto capability

people who overuse HDR should be put in reeducation camps

I really don't get why people pretend the BM59 is significantly better. I don't think it's a bad gun, but I don't see how it's that different from the M14 itself to even be considered "better".

>since it's basically take the M1 Garand and make it so it takes a box magazine

too bad they made it with finicky, mediocre magazines that were a downgrade from the en block clip

Magazines so shit the AR-10 used them, eh bud?

>be random draftee
>carry around heavy ass rifle
>fuck.png

>nuArmalite once sold modified M14 mags for their AR-10B so that means all AR-10s use M14 mags

stay in school, kiddo

So shitty a 'nu' company used them to ensure the success of their firearm in a market.

couldn't have been too successful if way more guns are made to the DPMS pattern than the Armalite/Eagle Arms pattern.

good job moving those goalposts btw

Attached: moving the goalposts.jpg (1600x1064, 439K)

And yet the M14's still sold today still use those terrible magazines with no real complaints from the tens of thousands of people that buy them every year.

Attached: 1548395557697.png (1400x1400, 271K)

It was outdated by the time it was adopted.

nice funfact, but what does this do to answer OP's question?
why do people not like the rifle itself?

By this user's logic, McDonalds makes excellent hamburgers.

I dunno. Shut up. If demand is low prices will be too, and I wanna buy a couple.

Well I mean if you want to be pedantic mc donalds does have millions of locations around the world, so they're doing something right.

I have a Norinco M305 and its been good to me. Hasn't jammed yet and hits where I am aiming

Big Mac can't be denied. The dollar menu is pure garbage tho.

My lgs has one for $999, with the black synthetic stock

the M14 is excellent and highly respected.

the M1A is a cheap commercial copy piece of garbage that is made from chinesium and cheap parts with low quality control

did you just compare cheap mass produced hamburgers to a boomer tier rifle that is relatively expensive?
what's wrong with the rock'n'lock exactly? The mags are similar in form to g3 and fal mags so it can't be their actual design

>not like the rifle
I think people just don't like the owners that come on here wanting us to pretend their rifles are just as good as rifles half the price.

Hi, he's posting out of desperation because he doesn't have an argument, but thanks for providing another counterpoint to his retarded dialogue.

That's a potentially fair price, assuming it's in good condition.
When I see these things in gun stores they're always overpriced by hundreds of dollars. I can see why, too, because everytime I go back a month or two later someone paid for one.

literally who on Jow Forums pretends an m1a is just as good as a rifle that's half the price?
everyone who actually owns one is aware of its flaws but they bought it to have fun with, it's a range toy like any other battle rifle.

>the M1A is a cheap commercial copy piece of garbage that is made from chinesium and cheap parts with low quality control
literally what? source this because the problem with SAI isn't their quality of m1as, it's their illinois fuckery years ago when they supported some anti-2a legislation in the state.
the actual chinesium rifles also work fine and some people prefer certain aspects of them funnily enough.

>did you just compare cheap mass produced hamburgers to a boomer tier rifle that is relatively expensive?

No, I suggested that "higher sales = better quality" is a logical fallacy. Try to keep up.

>what's wrong with the rock'n'lock exactly?

I didn't say anything about rock'n'lock, just that the M14 doesn't do a particularly good job implementing it.

> The mags are similar in form to g3 and fal mags

But they aren't the same mags, so that's irrelevant.

what the hell is wrong with M14 mags? I've never had a single problem with mine. They're more expensive than AR mags, but who the fuck cares?

literally the worst of the battle rifles

how about you say what is wrong with the m14 magazines then

Attached: 1552670081832.png (363x376, 298K)

[nothing]

Attached: 1542114537044.jpg (864x884, 195K)

It's been mentioned before in the thread; they aren't particularly well designed and they can be tricky to insert.

fresh out of the HDR fryer

>No, I suggested that "higher sales = better quality" is a logical fallacy. Try to keep up.
that isn't what the user said though
he said...
>And yet the M14's still sold today still use those terrible magazines with no real complaints from the tens of thousands of people that buy them every year.
people who actually own the rifle never complain about the mags, yet you say they're shit without actually saying anything else.
you can't even understand his point.

..you haven't actually inserted one before have you?

You realize the front tab is on a spring and they can damn as near be inserted straight in and click into place right? Did I wake up in fucking bizzaro land?

Attached: 1549585703175.gif (290x218, 2.06M)

>they aren't particularly well designed
elaborate.
>they can be tricky to insert.
this sounds like a personal problem. I think the design is obviously outdated, as is the entire rifle, but it's an old design so how can I complain? If you want modern design you buy a modern battle rifle.

>It's been mentioned before in the thread
which post? I just searched for "mag" and read every post with "mag" in it and no one has pointed out the flaws of the magazine. one dude said the en bloc clips were superior, that's about it.

>they aren't particularly well designed
How so?
>and they can be tricky to insert.
maybe if you're retarded or have a neurological disorder?

these threads are always people who don't know anything being very vocal about how little they know

trips of trash

I have one and I love my M1A. Guys at work hate it since it isn't "tacticool" looking for their tastes but whatever.

Attached: 1554935672654.jpg (600x656, 71K)

8mm ubermensch

What the fuck is up with this picture. It's in the uncanny valley. Can't tell if real or extremely detailed render.

Since there's a thread on M1As already, I'll just post here.

Who makes good M1As? I see Springfield Armory makes like 20 different versions, with their normal, loaded, match quality, etc., being an average shooter, would I even notice a difference using their low end model vs something better?

>being an average shooter, would I even notice a difference using their low end model vs something better?
Realistically, probably not.

there is a big difference between the top and bottom of what springfield makes, but it's likely not worth the cash to you as a regular shooter and you can work your way up there overtime if you so desire with whatever yo uend up buying.
the main standard difference is do you want a wood or synthetic stock and a stainless steel barrel or nah?
the rest is just nuances.

if you don't want to support springfield armory due to 2nd amendment stances then you can check out fulton armory and james river armory.
i hear they're high quality but it better be for the prices seen.
hickok did a video comparing I beleive a JRA m14 to a springfield standard m1a and said he couldn't tell the difference except for the trigger in terms of practical shooting.

no kidding, too many people here actually think the M14 is good despite never having touched one

The inverse is also true.

please share how inferior a semi-auto m14 is to a ptr91 and fal.

Garand was better in every way.

That's what I figured.

Yeah, steering away from Fulton because of the prices, if I wanted to pay that much I'd get one of Springfields top end models. I'll look into JRA, any other recommendations for decent/good M1As? I can get a Springfield for $1500, so something around that price range or cheaper but not being shit quality is all I'm asking for.

>If you're going to get pissy about accuracy then don't ever buy any battle rifle, just buy a nice AR10. The only reason anyone buys a G3 clone, FAL, or M1A/M14 is to have fun with it
Pretty much. They are all flawed but interesting and fun to shoot designs but if you are getting them for anything other than the giggles you already fucked up.

Alright Jow Forums buying an M1A. Should I get a loaded or standard?

>They are all flawed but interesting and fun to shoot designs but if you are getting them for anything other than the giggles you already fucked up.
All of those guns saw actual hard use in the real world, you could do much worse than any of the main battle rifles.

you won't get a new m14 of any kind for cheaper than what springfield offers.
A standard model last I checked which was a week ago was less than $1500 and "standard" is what most people want when they're looking for it. It's effectively the same as what was actually used back in the day, beyond that you're improving sights, bedding, stock, gas system, etc etc.

I like them but the AR-10 is more affordable and is a better rifle overall.

if you have to ask, probably standard unless you intend to do specific stuff with it

Sounds good, I'll go with the standard for now, and maybe later on if I feel like I'm getting better and need a better one I'll go up in quality. Thanks for the info.

enjoy your gun, user. M1As are some of the comfiest guns to shoot, and they're quite nice on the eyes too.

Haha, never.
I owns select-fire M14. It’s not that bad with a bit of practice.

>All of those guns saw actual hard use in the real world, you could do much worse than any of the main battle rifles
That is a fair point. I mean that more in the sense of modern ergos/optics mounting/lockup that kind of fanciness but irons and .308 still work.

I was under the impression that, to this day, it had massive feed issues, hilariously low accuracy compared to other guns in its class, and was terribly expensive to manufacture?

Just mainly shooting for fun. I intend to just get the classic wood one not sniping 1000 yard targets, I didn't know if the quality difference between the standard and the loaded is worth it.

The M1A is a fine rifle and fun to shoot. It IS pricey for what you get, but if you like wood stocks, old school designs, and 30 caliber, it's worth having in the collection. If you think that plastic frame pistols and aluminum and plastic rifles are the best shit in the world, then don't buy one.

In order, No, No, and probably.

>massive feed issues
wat the fuk?
>hilariously low accuracy compared to other guns in its class
it is on par or better. ~2MOA for standard. Can reach subMOA if you spend thousands more.
>was terribly expensive to manufacture?
sure but what does that have to do with the end-user? It's not absurdly expensive to make compared to other rifles of its class, just generally more. it was also more expensive than it was supposed to be on inception, but that is a government problem, not a rifle problem.

for that, i'd just save and get standard. turn it into a project later if you decide to amp it up.
it's going to hit where you aim as is.

>Tfw flexing on boomers who post their Springshits

Attached: 539E1A56-3C43-42F7-95F4-84434BC6FC8F.jpg (1536x2048, 879K)

>need to spend thousands on a standard M1A to get sub-MOA

Not gonna argue it's easy to get sub-MOA on an M14 platform, but where the fuck do these people get the idea it's that prohibitively expensive? At the very most, you spend a couple hundred or less to bed the standard stock, shim the gas lugs, and go fucking shoot. Better yet, just get a drop-in chassis like the Blackfeather.

im unaware of the drop-in chassis to reach sub-moa.
every eample of sub-moa I've seen is closer to 1k than not.

This!