Anyone have personal experience with this ammo?

[natertot]

And as far as your claim about the M14 being more accurate at 500 yards, I'm going to have to call you out there. One of the biggest reasons the m14 was phased out was because the wooden furniture on it would swell in the damp jungles of Vietnam, resulting in horrible accuracy. The M16A1 wasn't exactly a tac driver, but the fact that it was made out of polymer and steel left it basically immune to swelling. Granted, they made polymer housing for M-14s, but that was way later.

Also, part of the reason the range is different is because we're talking about what's called "maximum effective range." A 7.62x54 is simply more effective at a higher range because it's a heavier round. You can still accurately shoot an AR-15 through paper targets beyond 300 meters, you just can't reliably kill a person with them.

A couple of things. The m-14 shoots 7.62 nato, not 7.62 x 54. Second of all, the m-14 was never phased out. It is still currently in use by at least three branches. Navy uses it to shoot lines from one ship to another and for ship defense because the range is farther. The Marines and Army are also currently using it because the 5.56 can't shoot from one mountain to the next. The maximum range of the m-14 is 700-975yds, depending on the ammo issued.

[Rick]

Just so you know...you are challenging a gun smith that used them in Viet Nam.

[natertot]

Just so you know...you are challenging a gun smith that used them in Viet Nam.

That's fine, I used one less than 10 years ago.

[kyratshooter]

I think you'd be surprised at how much carbon buildup affects the accuracy of a weapon. One of the biggest reasons people handload is because they get to experiment with different products and how much carbon they leave in the upper receiver / chamber.



I know there's a lot of variability between weapons, but that's simply not true. Unless you're talking about using some pristine match grade AK (if there is such a thing) versus an old M16 A1 or something, the AR-15 is just a far more accurate rifle by design. In fact, that's one of the only reasons the AR-15 is better than the AK. The AK-47 was based off of the SKS, which uses an very style old school gas piston. This is less accurate than (many) AR-15s gas impingement systems. Granted, although many ARs do use gas pistons, they're a different design than an AK's - which is literally just a piece of tube on the outside of the weapon. The reason is because the impingement system has less moving parts over the barrel than the gas piston, resulting in better accuracy. The AK's barrel also heats up quicker, (usually) has a shorter barrel, and is more prone to barrel wobble (as opposed to modern AR-15s free floating barrel systems).


Attachment 11044

This is the gas impingement system on an AR-15.





If you ask me, the biggest factor in the total accuracy is the shooter!


And as far as your claim about the M14 being more accurate at 500 yards, I'm going to have to call you out there. One of the biggest reasons the m14 was phased out was because the wooden furniture on it would swell in the damp jungles of Vietnam, resulting in horrible accuracy. The M16A1 wasn't exactly a tac driver, but the fact that it was made out of polymer and steel left it basically immune to swelling. Granted, they made polymer housing for M-14s, but that was way later.

Also, part of the reason the range is different is because we're talking about what's called "maximum effective range." A 7.62x54 is simply more effective at a higher range because it's a heavier round. You can still accurately shoot an AR-15 through paper targets beyond 300 meters, you just can't reliably kill a person with them.

There's also a difference between point target and area target, but I digress.

There are so much misinformation in this one post that it would take all day to point them out. From the materials used to make an M14 to the origins of the AK to the miss-naming of the round used in the M14 to the insertion of terms intended to dazzle the reader which have no relevance to the discussion.

As I said in the last post I made, a lot has been revealed and there is little use continuing the discussion when reality has been altered.

[Rick]

Sorry, Nate, that was for IA: Next post up. You and I posted at the same time.

[natertot]

Sorry, Nate, that was for IA: Next post up. You and I posted at the same time.

Ahhhhhh, gotcha. Now I see how it goes together. Thanks!

[druid]

Well.....I do appreciate all the input and the off-topic discussion was wildly entertaining for me......

I'm well aware that most accuracy 'issues' are with the shooter, the shooter's platform, breathing technique, trigger control and all that...

As I recall, I did say this is a "utilitarian" rifle and I'm just hoping to get 3" groups [or better] at about 200 yards with this ammo.

Thank you for all the responses.

[InfantryAmerican]

Ok, I'm the new guy here so I'm not trying to make everyone angry, but I don't know where some of you guys are getting your "information." Much of it is dubious to say the least, and at worse inaccurate. I'm honestly getting the impression that some of you guys are relying on things you experienced a long time ago and thinking it's gospel. I'm not one for getting into long drawn out arguments on the internet, but I'm hoping to clear up some of the "misinformation" around here with something other than hearsay.

The m-14 shoots 7.62 nato, not 7.62 x 54.

That's true, I mistyped it. It shoots a 7.62x51 (.308) round. Sorry, I'm using a tablet.

Second of all, the m-14 was never phased out. It is still currently in use by at least three branches. Navy uses it to shoot lines from one ship to another and for ship defense because the range is farther. The Marines and Army are also currently using it because the 5.56 can't shoot from one mountain to the next.

Not really accurate. Sure, the Army, Navy, and Marines still have them but to act like they're frequently seeing use or haven't been phased out is not true. In fact, the first source also uses the phrase "phased out." Marines are the branch that are most inclined to use them, but that's simply because they always use the oldest equipment. Even so, the M14 was phased out in 1970, and (at least in the Army) Basic Combat Training / OSUT does not give soldiers training or exposure to M14s. In fact, their most common use is ceremonial.

Source: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/weapons/a/m14.htm
Source: My Enlistment in the infantry.

So unless your argument is that it's a superior twirling rifle, it's not really accurate to say that they haven't been phased out. You're right they're still used, but it's very uncommon.

Just so you know...you are challenging a gun smith that used them in Viet Nam.

Just so you know, I went to US Army Armorer school less than six years ago and just finished my enlistment recently. As in, not fifty years ago.

There are so much misinformation in this one post that it would take all day to point them out.

Oh please, I typed the wrong diameter of the round. The rest of the information is very accurate and I have sources proving it all. Stop being dramatic.

From the materials used to make an M14

The original M14 that was issued in the Vietnam war did have wooden furniture.

"However, there were several drawbacks to the M14. The traditional wood stock of the rifle had a tendency to swell and expand in the heavy moisture of the jungle, adversely affecting accuracy. Fiberglass stocks were produced to resolve this problem, but the rifle was discontinued before very many could be distributed for field use."

Source: Emerson, Lee. M14 Rifle History. imageseek.com, 10 October 2006.
Source: M14 rifle / Mk.14 Mod.0 Enchanced [sic] Battle rifle (USA) world.guns.ru
Source: Kevin Dockery (4 December 2007). Future Weapons. Penguin. pp. 45–. ISBN 978-0-425-21750-4.

...to the origins of the AK

"The rifle that Kalashnikov designed was in the same class as the familiar SKS-45 Simonov with fixed magazine and gas tube above the barrel."

It was also being designed while the soviets were currently using the SKS (which Kalashnikov have used), so to think that it wasn't influenced is kind of a point you'll have a hard time proving.

source: Shilin, Val; Cutshaw, Charlie. "Mikhail Kalashnikov". Power Custom. Archived from the original on 2 April 2005.

...to the insertion of terms intended to dazzle the reader which have no relevance to the discussion.

I guess this is in reference to the piston? Not to be rude here, but if you think that talking about a rifle's construction is irrelevant to discussing its accuracy, you have no idea what in the world you're talking about. In fact, the gas piston vs. gas impingment system is an old debate! Gas piston weapons are less accurate even though they run cooler, but they're also cleaner. The reason they're less accurate is because they have more moving parts over the barrel.

Source: http://info.stagarms.com/blog/bid/29...y-for-an-AR-15
Source: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/dir...pros-and-cons/
Source: http://www.gundigest.com/tactical-ge...ment-vs-piston

As I said in the last post I made, a lot has been revealed and there is little use continuing the discussion when reality has been altered.

Again, you really don't need to be this dramatic. You don't really have the right to be this dismissive considering most of what you wrote was wrong.


My original point was simple - This ammo in question is not bad, I've used it before, I shoot it frequently, I have some stored, and most rifles will probably shoot it accurately. However, when people discuss ammo, they often forget that carbon buildup can affect the overall accuracy of a weapon more than they realize. This being said, the number one factor as to whether or not you hit your target is the operator.

I am now respectfully bowing out of the "debate." I'm sure people will have things to say in response, which is fine. I'll leave with this recommendation.

[Rick]

Just so you know...you are challenging a gun smith that used them in Viet Nam.
Just so you know, I went to US Army Armorer school less than six years ago and just finished my enlistment recently. As in, not fifty years ago.

That's fine. It's just YOUR reference was to the problems with them in Viet Nam. As in, not six years ago.

[natertot]

And I will add that the m14 was never phased out. It was replaced as the primary issue weapon, but it has never been discontinued. Half of my ships hand held rifles were m14 and stood many watches with them. In the army and marine corps, there are very few of them compared to the m16, but they are still being used continuously.

[crashdive123]

I agree with InfantryAmerican on this one. Phased out may not be the correct term because they are still around and some upgraded versions are being used, but they are no longer the primary battle rifle that they once were.

[InfantryAmerican]

That's fine. It's just YOUR reference was to the problems with them in Viet Nam. As in, not six years ago.

The wooden furniture on M14s swelling up and being less accurate is a matter of documented history (which you're still apparently disputing). Anybody who claims they served in the Vietnam War but apparently doesn't know this is suspicious in my book.

Not like that's even relevant though. Even if this person soley used an M14 in combat and it totally outperformed every other weapon, his anecdotal experience doesn't change the fact that hundreds of thousands of soldiers reported these issues and ergo caused it to change.


This just proves my original point that people are hemming and hawing over facts. Perhaps these are facts that they dislike I guess, but I literally posted sources for every claim I made.

And I will add that the m14 was never phased out. It was replaced as the primary issue weapon, but it has never been discontinued. Half of my ships hand held rifles were m14 and stood many watches with them. In the army and marine corps, there are very few of them compared to the m16, but they are still being used continuously.

So if you admit that the M14 is no longer purchased by the military, hasn't been the primary issue weapon since the 1970s, you saw them used for guard duty while not actively deployed, and their primary use is for ceremony - what would you call that? I guess if you don't like the word "phased out" that's cool, but it's rather silly to watch people backpeddling when the original point was showcasing as if this weapon was still activley and frequenly in use by the service.

The US hasn't had full Naval engagement in with m14s in years. Some soldiers used them in theater through Operation Iraqi Freedom, but it's very few. Of those few, most were Marines, which makes sense because they have the oldest equipment.

Argue about it all you want.

[crashdive123]

I think that everybody's point has been made on the topic. No need to belabor it and cover the same ground again. Time to move on or add something new if you've got it.

[hunter63]

What was the final thought on the American Eagle 5.56, 62 gr fmj ?....in an AR platform.

Seems that got kinda lost.

[natertot]

So if you admit that the M14 is no longer purchased by the military No, they are not purchasing them. They are used in refurbished or rebuilt units, hasn't been the primary issue weapon since the 1970sCorrect, I never said otherwise. The m-16 became the primary issue weapon in 1964. Due to issues with the initial m-16, the primary issue went back and forth between the m-16 and the m-14 until 1970 when the m-16 and variants became the primary issue weapon ever since., you saw them used for guard duty while not actively deployedNope, I personally used them while actively deployed three separate times., and their primary use is for ceremony I was on the ships honor guard and we did use the m-14 as well for this. They were the same m-14's we used for everything else. - what would you call that? I guess if you don't like the word "phased out" that's cool, but it's rather silly to watch people backpeddling when the original point was showcasing as if this weapon was still activley and frequenly in use by the service. It is still actively in use, but it is in very very small amounts compared to the m-16 and its variants. The m-14 is probably outnumbered 1 million to 1. I just understand "phased out" as meaning "no longer used at all".

The US hasn't had full Naval engagement in with m14s in years. True, but that is because we have only been in wars with countries that have no Navy themselves and reside primarily in desert and mountain regions. Ships only go where there is water. Some soldiers used them in theater through Operation Iraqi Freedom, but it's very few. Of those few, most were Marines, which makes sense because they have the oldest equipment.

Argue about it all you want.

Not arguing with you. I think we have different meanings for the term "Phased Out". I take it to mean "no longer in use" whereas it seems you take it to mean "we still use it but aren't buying anymore". That is fine, and I think we agree. It seems were are saying the same thing in different ways. Kind of a PITA about the English language, so many people speak it but there are so many variants!

[hunter63]

Ammo, ammo, what about the ammo?.......LOL

[druid]

alright guys...if you want to debate the merits of the M-14...please create a new thread. Thanks.

Hunter.....I have no idea. LOL.

[hunter63]

alright guys...if you want to debate the merits of the M-14...please create a new thread. Thanks.

Hunter.....I have no idea. LOL.

LOL....Me either.....anyway.....let us know what you think if you try it.

[natertot]

As I recall, I did say this is a "utilitarian" rifle and I'm just hoping to get 3" groups [or better] at about 200 yards with this ammo.

Given the specs you have given, a 3" group or better is plausible with the ammo in question. Of course, things can very from one rifle to the next and one lot of ammo from another so there is no guarantee. I find that no matter what I shoot, if I am not reloading for it I will buy different ammo and test it. I then stick to what works from there.

I hope this helps you.

[Rick]

Ammo, ammo, what about the ammo?.......LOL

What he said.....