.
Hmmm, maybe they were talking about "full burst" accuracy with an "average Rifleman".....
Sounds about right to me for that.....otherwise, I'm with you....saw way too many 14's that were more accurate than the guys shooting 'em...... :o
As with all else, YMMV.... :cool2:
LLP
The standard would be the same as for the M1 Garand, its daddy.
They may be confusing "maximum acceptable dispersion" with "accuracy".
In other words, the standard the 'worst rifle' would have to meet in order to be accepted for gov service.
Most M1As I've seen will do 3-4 MOA without any problem - as Laylo says, they'll shoot better than the men carrying them.
Heck, you could no doubt issue smoothbore muskets to most people, and, other than having to reload each round, they wouldn't notice any difference, accuracy-wise.
All of you have seen hundreds of shooters shoot that first Redcoat target, right? :-X >:( :)
Maybe we can hear from some of the WSM/Ft Stewart guys as to how "accurate" were the troops when they first showed up...
Many M1A's (very similar to an M14 ;D) have been used to shoot rifleman scores on full distance AQTs. Hmmmm.
The US Army is (as quickly as possible) getting more and more M14's into the field overseas because the rifle and cartridge is capable of reaching out and "touching" the intended target at ranges farther that the current general issue rifle. Hmmmm.
I don't know what the original military minimum accuracy standards were for the M14 rifle. Most folks say a good one will shoot around 2 MOA, a really good one will shoot 1 MOA (maybe even a little better) and the ones that no one brags about will shoot 4 or 5 MOA.
The article was written by a "writer" who is paid to write articles. Much like the newspapers and primetime news there is no requirement to:
1. be factual
2. be right
3. be an expert on what you are writing about
4. if, in the author's experience with M14's/M1A's he only sees about 5.6 MOA maybe he should attend and Appleseed..... ;)
Been a lot of talk on another forum about this article. Perhaps it should have been under the section on humor.
Was it the article in the April 2010 issue of SWAT magazine by Mike Jones called, "Slaying the Sacred Cow - Myth of the M14 Rifle"?
Supposedly some of his concerns include:
- It's technology from the 1930's.
- Supply and Maintainence channels won't support it being issued to non-SOF units in large numbers.
- The general issue guns were only required to meet a 5.6 MOA standard.
- Mounting optics was an afterthough in the design. (The comb is too low)
- The "bizarre and archaic" manual of arms requires you to place your finger near the trigger to use the safety.
- Poor ammo to weight ratio.
So, does anyone have that article that could scan it sometime?....I know we are all busy with 4/19 shoots.
A quick note, Lee Emerson wrote the "M14 Rifle History and Development". A must have for you M1A/M14 Riflemen.
He states for the historical record and I paraphrase:
"The rate of fire in automatic had to be within a specified range of 650-780 rounds per minute. Each rifle had to group within 5.6" at 100 yards with 5 rounds of M80 ammo.
While this may not seem terribly accurate, this includes the inaccuracy of the M80 ammo factored in.
However, for every 90 rounds of M80 fired, the accuracy rate was in reality, an average of 3.57" at 100 yards.
Testing for overhauled rifles: in a test stand with M80 and M59 they had to group within a 1.8" circle"
There are more grueling tests to numerous to mention. As we all know they can outshoot most of us.
Generally speaking, there is lots of sour grapes (black rifle guys writing, or told to do so by their editors about wood stock rifles). There is much dis/misinformation and plain old ego and ignorance from so called "expert gun writers" from the glossy rags. I have not read the article so can't say.
There are plenty of actual shooters and historical research that has set the M1A/M14 record straight. Get them to an Appleseed so they can see for themselves.
Quote from: Fred on April 04, 2010, 07:32:37 PM
All of you have seen hundreds of shooters shoot that first Redcoat target, right? :-X >:( :)
Maybe we can hear from some of the WSM/Ft Stewart guys as to how "accurate" were the troops when they first showed up...
I was on the Ft. Stewart team. The accuracy when they first showed up was considerably less than the 3-4 moa that their rifles were capable of.
.
Quote from: TaosGlock on April 04, 2010, 09:31:54 PM
Was it the article in the April 2010 issue of SWAT magazine by Mike Jones called, "Slaying the Sacred Cow - Myth of the M14 Rifle"?
Supposedly some of his concerns include:
- It's technology from the 1930's.
- Supply and Maintenance channels won't support it being issued to non-SOF units in large numbers.
- The general issue guns were only required to meet a 5.6 MOA standard.
- Mounting optics was an afterthough in the design. (The comb is too low)
- The "bizarre and archaic" manual of arms requires you to place your finger near the trigger to use the safety.
- Poor ammo to weight ratio.
Interesting choice of words:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php/94932-Springfield-M1A?p=1349836&viewfull=1#post1349836
Quote from: Andy in NH on April 05, 2010, 12:06:33 AM
Quote from: TaosGlock on April 04, 2010, 09:31:54 PM
Was it the article in the April 2010 issue of SWAT magazine by Mike Jones called, "Slaying the Sacred Cow - Myth of the M14 Rifle"?
Supposedly some of his concerns include:
- It's technology from the 1930's.
- Supply and Maintenance channels won't support it being issued to non-SOF units in large numbers.
- The general issue guns were only required to meet a 5.6 MOA standard.
- Mounting optics was an afterthough in the design. (The comb is too low)
- The "bizarre and archaic" manual of arms requires you to place your finger near the trigger to use the safety.
- Poor ammo to weight ratio.
Interesting choice of words:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php/94932-Springfield-M1A?p=1349836&viewfull=1#post1349836
Yup! That was the first hit on the search engine in my quest to find the SWAT article! Do you have that article to scan?
.
Quote from: TaosGlock on April 05, 2010, 02:01:46 AMDo you have that article to scan?
No scanner, but if you PM me your address I can snail mail you a photocopy.
That article was written for "shock value," so people like us would get worked up about it, discuss it, spread the word about it, and then ultimately go buy magazines. That's it.
We all know what the M-14 can do. We all know that our poodle-shooting brethren sometimes get jealous. ;D Stuff like this is to be expected from time to time.
Ok,
Back to driving up registrations for 4-17/18 ~~:)
I was a rifle newbie when I went into the US Army in 1975. I carried/shot/qualified with the M16A1 in basic (Ft. Jackson) and AIT (Ft. Polk). I shot expert with it (them, different rifles at two different posts - heck the one at Ft. Jackson was one of those green looking rifles that said GM Hydramatic Division on the side and had a 3 prong flash suppressor on it - you know, the ones people are always asking if they were really made because they are/were on the rare side).
Then I got to Ft. Myer and got my M14. First time we went to the range to qualify we shot M16's and M14's. It was windy that day. Wind at 3 O'clock. We were guessing how far off the target to the right to aim in order to hit the pop ups out at 250 to 300 meters with the M16A1's. With the M14's we were putting the sights on the pop ups and knocking them down. That was the day I made up my mind I had to have me one of those rifles. Three years later my tax return bought me a nice M1A at a little gun shop out in Tyson's Corner. I still have it.
The gunwriters can record their opinions as often as they like, I've shot both of them.
Ya'll have a good day.
I don't know about all the technical stuff as to design and acceptance criteria but I do know personal experience. I went through Basic Training at Paris Island in the spring of 1970. We trained with and qualified with M14s. The abuse those rifles went through was incredible. D.I.s throwing them down the squadbay or parade deck, etc. No telling how many rounds had been fired through them. I thought surely these were just training rifles and we would get "real" rifles to qualify with. WRONG! We fired the same rifles we were issued during forming. We qualified at 200 yds, 300 yds and 500 yds. At 200 & 300 yds. we shot the military D silhouette. At 500 yds the target was a bullseye. I do not remember the diameter but the front site blade totally obscured the bullseye. Putting 10 out of 10 in the bull was no problem at the 500 yd line with these used, abused, rack grade rifles. That is the reason I still love and believe in these rifles.
Quothe OD:
"I was a rifle newbie when I went into the US Army in 1975. I carried/shot/qualified with the M16A1 in basic (Ft. Jackson) and AIT (Ft. Polk). I shot expert with it (them, different rifles at two different posts - heck the one at Ft. Jackson was one of those green looking rifles that said GM Hydramatic Division on the side and had a 3 prong flash suppressor on it - you know, the ones people are always asking if they were really made because they are/were on the rare side)."
I'll say. I only ever saw one like that.
I was an instructor/armorer for the Calif ANG and I had one of these rifles in our training racks. It was an Armalite, not a GM, but it had the olds style three prong suppressor and one piece of green furniture remaining. A little homework and snooping turned up some green furniture on other bases that could be bartered for. We got that thing all trimmed out like original and used it in the classroom for the "history" portion of the M16 class.
Serial number was 2816, IIRC.
:)