AK or M-14 in harsh conditions?
- Thread starter bullfrog99
- Start date
BB, if you can't keep a civil tongue in your head I won't bother replying to you. Maybe I am mistaken...there's always a possibility, but there is no need for you to get rude about it.
However, after I bought the gun, I took it to an acquaintance of mine who is something of an M1A guru, whose opinion I trust on the matter. He told me that the earliest M1As used mostly GI parts and that everything on my rifle was TRW except the barrel. I don't know the ramifications of that...it obviously isn't an M14 or Springfield wouldn't have been allowed to sell it.
If he told me incorrectly, sorry...I had no reason to doubt him.
However, after I bought the gun, I took it to an acquaintance of mine who is something of an M1A guru, whose opinion I trust on the matter. He told me that the earliest M1As used mostly GI parts and that everything on my rifle was TRW except the barrel. I don't know the ramifications of that...it obviously isn't an M14 or Springfield wouldn't have been allowed to sell it.
If he told me incorrectly, sorry...I had no reason to doubt him.
Sorry man, no rudness intended. Its all good. I'm just saying that TRW only made GI M14 receivers, which would be class-3 machineguns. The only non-class 3 TRW recievers I know of are rewelds, and SA would never (has never) built their M1As on them, they use a cast receiver from Brazil. I think what your friend meant was, youve got an M1A (that would be the SA receiver, kinda goes without saying) with all TRW parts with the exception of the barrel. Which means you have one of the better ones, and if you want to sell it I'd be interested
Does anyone on this thread even have the remotest idea that many of the NM modifications to the M14/M1A system are intended to enhance reliability?
Does anyone on this thread even have the remotest idea that some NM modifications can have absolutely NO effect on reliability?
The only one which I believe can affect reliability is the match chamber dimensions. Even then, I believe you would have a hard time coming up with any decent stats on MTBF.
Trust me, the receiver and bolt interface demensions don't even appear in the NM modifications specs.
Does anyone on this thread even have the remotest idea that some NM modifications can have absolutely NO effect on reliability?
The only one which I believe can affect reliability is the match chamber dimensions. Even then, I believe you would have a hard time coming up with any decent stats on MTBF.
Trust me, the receiver and bolt interface demensions don't even appear in the NM modifications specs.
And another thing...
The goblin is back...
I know one guy with an AK type rifle in .223 that jams religiously. Can't shoot reloads in it because it rips the case in half on extraction about once every 15 to 20 rounds.
It also likes to jam bullet noses in the back of the barrel below the chamber about once every 15 rounds. He's tried the original mag, a Chinese-made mag and an Israeli mag, with no appreciable difference in results.
But NONE of those jams was as bad and compeletely disabling as the AR-15 that had a round pop through the feed lips and then crammed the top round between the bolt (in back behind the case), the charging handle above the round, and the top of the barrel below and in front of the bullet. Couldn't get the bolt back, and it obviously would NOT go forward, either.
I distrust the closed-receiver systems like that.
I'd still like to see Desert Storm stats on sand-jams among the various arms used by the allies and the Iraquis. Percentages of incidence would be the only way to really evaluate the performance.
The goblin is back...
I know one guy with an AK type rifle in .223 that jams religiously. Can't shoot reloads in it because it rips the case in half on extraction about once every 15 to 20 rounds.
It also likes to jam bullet noses in the back of the barrel below the chamber about once every 15 rounds. He's tried the original mag, a Chinese-made mag and an Israeli mag, with no appreciable difference in results.
But NONE of those jams was as bad and compeletely disabling as the AR-15 that had a round pop through the feed lips and then crammed the top round between the bolt (in back behind the case), the charging handle above the round, and the top of the barrel below and in front of the bullet. Couldn't get the bolt back, and it obviously would NOT go forward, either.
I distrust the closed-receiver systems like that.
I'd still like to see Desert Storm stats on sand-jams among the various arms used by the allies and the Iraquis. Percentages of incidence would be the only way to really evaluate the performance.
The NM chamber dimension is primarily what I was refering to. But that doesn't explain why my M1A is tight, and the M14s I used were loose, especially the gas system (barrel band, gas cylinder, op rod guide) and, yes, the bolt lugs. The only explaination that I can think of that would cause this is loose tolerences on the M14, and they make perfect sense. Loose is reliable. Tight is accurate.
The M14s ran, the AKs ran, the FAMAS ran, the M16s ran most of the time (especially after dry lubes were used), the L85s did not run (it was actually kinda sad) but their replacements (L1A1s) ran. Those are the only ones I saw, but I'm sure there were some G3s around somewhere.
[Edited by BB on 06-06-2001 at 06:16 PM]
The M14s ran, the AKs ran, the FAMAS ran, the M16s ran most of the time (especially after dry lubes were used), the L85s did not run (it was actually kinda sad) but their replacements (L1A1s) ran. Those are the only ones I saw, but I'm sure there were some G3s around somewhere.
[Edited by BB on 06-06-2001 at 06:16 PM]
You can't miss fast enough to win. Given that, I'd rather have a rifle which has a 1/1000 stoppage rate but allows me a 50% hit rate, than a rifle that has a 1/100000 stoppage rate but a 40% hit rate. Sights, trigger, ergonomics for me. That means AR family, Garand family, FAL. Haven't had a chance to manhandle AUG, FAMAS, G3, and other exotics yet.
Fred's editorial in the 01/29/10 Shotgun News has a letter reprinted for his readers. It is a letter from a sailor who went to the North Pole and shot the M14. He was on a fast attack submarine in the spring of 1992. They surfaced in the ice cap. The submarine captain let the crew shoot some M16s and M14s. The weather was 50 degrees below zero. I quote from the letter to Fred
"But I fired the M-14 a few times, and we passed it around to just about everyone. We must have fired a couple hundred rounds throught it, and it still fired and was straight on target. We left it lying in the snow for a minute to cool off, and when we picked it up it was frozen solid, and wouldn't cycle. So, we smacked it with a 2x4 to break free some ice and cycled it by hand, then we dumped some heavy gear oil all over it and cycled it in real good. Sure enough, it fired just fine, and kept working as long as we needed it to."
Sometime between 1989 and 1993, Springfield Armory reduced the tolerances on the M1A receiver. IMHO, that is why it is easier to get the operating rod off the receiver on older M1As than on ones made in the 90s and later. Also, the headspace specification for the M14 is longer than for the M1A.
I'll take the M14 any day over the AK. My $0.02.
"But I fired the M-14 a few times, and we passed it around to just about everyone. We must have fired a couple hundred rounds throught it, and it still fired and was straight on target. We left it lying in the snow for a minute to cool off, and when we picked it up it was frozen solid, and wouldn't cycle. So, we smacked it with a 2x4 to break free some ice and cycled it by hand, then we dumped some heavy gear oil all over it and cycled it in real good. Sure enough, it fired just fine, and kept working as long as we needed it to."
Sometime between 1989 and 1993, Springfield Armory reduced the tolerances on the M1A receiver. IMHO, that is why it is easier to get the operating rod off the receiver on older M1As than on ones made in the 90s and later. Also, the headspace specification for the M14 is longer than for the M1A.
I'll take the M14 any day over the AK. My $0.02.
cuerno de chivo
Moderator
What brand of AK-type rifle? It takes Chinese 84-S/BWK-92 mags and Israeli Galil mags?
teufelmann55
New member
AK hands down for reliability-the M14 comes in a close second though and M-16 below both others IMHO. Plus at combat ranges the AK is plenty effective and you can carry more ammo. The .223 AK's of chinese make are of questionable safety also, all they did was put a .223 bbl. on one and did not take into account the differences in pressure between the 7.62x39 and 5.56mm/.223 so the reciever may give out faster than w/original intended loading. For long term sits. I would have an M1A/M-14 for distance shots (300-1000 yds) in my cabin and trounce about with one of my AK's. But if I had my druthers I would use a Stgw. 44 or 45 over all others (but cannot afford one)
Just my opinion
Just my opinion
AmericaFirst
New member
MAK-90 vs Springfield Armory .308
lendringser pretty much said all that can be said on AK reliability. Of course I will add my 2cents anyway LOL
The design of the AK and its variants is renown for utter indifference to mud,twigs, etc. I have a MAK-90 stamped steel not milled like the BULGARIAN SLR-95. I chose the MAK-90 because the SLR has a muzzle brake. While that helps recoil it magnifies the report which I find can disturb aim more than even recoil. I was concerned about the stamped vs milled but this firearm can take more rounds than I think I would want to spend on ammo. Sure has given no trouble in 3 years of use with all kinds of ammo.
I think the semi-auto version of the M-14 made by SA is a fine rifle. Accuracy of course is much better than the AK types deliver and the power is by far greater.
That said the initial question was which action is most resistant to debris causing problems--I say AK type.
Sure is little ammo too LOL.
lendringser pretty much said all that can be said on AK reliability. Of course I will add my 2cents anyway LOL
The design of the AK and its variants is renown for utter indifference to mud,twigs, etc. I have a MAK-90 stamped steel not milled like the BULGARIAN SLR-95. I chose the MAK-90 because the SLR has a muzzle brake. While that helps recoil it magnifies the report which I find can disturb aim more than even recoil. I was concerned about the stamped vs milled but this firearm can take more rounds than I think I would want to spend on ammo. Sure has given no trouble in 3 years of use with all kinds of ammo.
I think the semi-auto version of the M-14 made by SA is a fine rifle. Accuracy of course is much better than the AK types deliver and the power is by far greater.
That said the initial question was which action is most resistant to debris causing problems--I say AK type.
Sure is little ammo too LOL.
Zigokubasi
New member
Which .223 AK was the jam-o-matic?
Does anyone know? I've been looking at the VEPR II, and after picking Tracer's brain about 'em, I'm pretty set on it. I'm also thinking of getting a SAR-3, but if that's one of the crappy ones, I'll stick with the VEPR alone. I've heard about older chinese .223 AKs that weren't too reliable, was that the type Cheapo was talking about, or was he referring to the SAR-3? Anyone here have a SAR-3 they can give a performance review on?
Ziggy
Does anyone know? I've been looking at the VEPR II, and after picking Tracer's brain about 'em, I'm pretty set on it. I'm also thinking of getting a SAR-3, but if that's one of the crappy ones, I'll stick with the VEPR alone. I've heard about older chinese .223 AKs that weren't too reliable, was that the type Cheapo was talking about, or was he referring to the SAR-3? Anyone here have a SAR-3 they can give a performance review on?
Ziggy
Z--the AK variant was a Valmet M76. I believe it is a specimen defect, perhaps with excessive headspace combined with excessively vigorous and perhaps early case extraction. On the feeding problems, I believe all the mags are incorrectly desiged--the front is cut out a bit from the sides=only about 1/16 inch of metal up front should be enough to tip the bullet noses up into the chamber before the feed lips release the case. There is about 1/16-inch of copper smear at the 5:30 and 6:30 positions at the back of the barrel below the chamber, showing where the bullet meplats hit on feeding.
With USGI Ball ammo, it works flawlessly. Reloads with bulk Winchester 55 FMJBTs get pulled apart mid-case, and jam the bullets into the barrel below the chamber at least once per magazine.
BB: looseness in the gas system and other places you mention does nothing to improve M14 reliability AFIK. Loose tolerances in the op rod raceway, the bolt raceway, the op rod/bolt lug interface, and the trigger group/bolt interface and related areas, will affect reliability. However, these areas are not a demonstrated problem in the M14 series, because they are already loose enough.
There are some theories that loose gas cylinders can reduce reliablity, by allowing gas bypass to reduce the operating power available--compare to the NM specs on gas pistons outside diameter and gas cylinder inside diameter on the M1 rifle. Too loose is rejected because of its effect on reliability, not for its effect on accuracy.
Gas cylinders to barrel fit on the M1 affects *user* accuracy because that's where the front sight is mounted.
Gas cylinder to barrel fit on the M14 is reported to affect accuracy, but AFIK, it's not guaranteed to improve accuracy. IOW, it's not a reliable variable in an individual rifle's accuracy.
BTW, how did the M16s perform in that North Pole ice cap exercise? Were they even deployed for that play session?
With USGI Ball ammo, it works flawlessly. Reloads with bulk Winchester 55 FMJBTs get pulled apart mid-case, and jam the bullets into the barrel below the chamber at least once per magazine.
BB: looseness in the gas system and other places you mention does nothing to improve M14 reliability AFIK. Loose tolerances in the op rod raceway, the bolt raceway, the op rod/bolt lug interface, and the trigger group/bolt interface and related areas, will affect reliability. However, these areas are not a demonstrated problem in the M14 series, because they are already loose enough.
There are some theories that loose gas cylinders can reduce reliablity, by allowing gas bypass to reduce the operating power available--compare to the NM specs on gas pistons outside diameter and gas cylinder inside diameter on the M1 rifle. Too loose is rejected because of its effect on reliability, not for its effect on accuracy.
Gas cylinders to barrel fit on the M1 affects *user* accuracy because that's where the front sight is mounted.
Gas cylinder to barrel fit on the M14 is reported to affect accuracy, but AFIK, it's not guaranteed to improve accuracy. IOW, it's not a reliable variable in an individual rifle's accuracy.
BTW, how did the M16s perform in that North Pole ice cap exercise? Were they even deployed for that play session?