Letters: M-14 Defended; AR-15’s Flaws

The article “Tweaking the AR15 for High Power Use” in April was quite good as long as it stuck to the issue of improving the AR-15. When the author felt he had to malign the M-14 to make the AR-15 look better was when he deviated from the facts. I own both weapons, and have tried to approach them objectively. The author states that “The M-14’s big disadvantage is that it requires a good deal of traditional gunsmithing and many labor-intensive modifications unique to the rifle to get it to shoot.” He later admits that it is necessary to add $1,000 to the bottom line of the AR-15 to make it a winning rifle—that is some pretty intensive gunsmithing and modifications.

The sensitivity of the M-14’s stock to heat, moisture, and sunlight is true, but not as severe as the article would indicate. If you are using an epoxy impregnated wood stock, the climatic changes are minimized. To eliminate them altogether, there are fiberglass and Kevlar stocks available, which the article didn’t mention.

The inset “Bullets Make the Difference” points out correctly the advantage of better ballistic coefficients but overstates the velocity edge of the AR15. The velocity of standard .308 match ammunition with the 168-grain bullet is 2550 fps. The published maximums in the new Sierra book for 80-grain bullets is 2600 fps, and at those loads my brass shows signs of pressure. The All National Guard Rifle Team uses an 80-grain load that is approximately 2550 fps. The 155-grain Sierra .308 Palma bullet can be loaded to 2800 fps without entering the high-pressure range, and at those velocities it has less wind drift at 600 yards than the Sierra 80-grain .224.

The article glosses over the fact that you have to shoot a bullet at 300 yards that will fit in the magazine—such as 69 or 68 grains. These loads are beaten even by the 168-grain .308 at 300 yards. The Sierra ballistics table gives the 168 at standard velocity a 3-inch advantage in wind drift over the 69-grain fired at maximum velocity.

Last, but not least, the short sight radius of the AR-15 causes problems for both beginning and older shooters. Older shooters find it difficult to focus on the front sight of the AR-15 and the short sight radius makes the weapon extermely sensitive to sight alignment (a beginner problem).

The article does a good job discussing what is needed to make the AR-15 shoot competitively, but the M-14 isn’t dead yet!

I have been shooting competitively for 34 years, mostly high power. I shot on the All Guard team for seven years, went distinguished in 1984, and I am presently on the All Reserve Team. I also was an interior ballistician for the Navy and have reloaded both as a hobby and professionally for 25 years.

-Michael R. Jamison
Merrifield, VA

Mr. Zediker responds: I, too, own “both” service rifles and didn’t intend to belittle the bigger gun. I love my M-14, but it’s at the shop right now being reglassed, and I’m still shooting my AR-15, and that’s the real difference.

The bottom line cost difference to detail two equally competitive rifles is still in the favor of the AR-15. Room didn’t allow me to go into all the options, but by virtue of its (generally) decent barrel, a stock Colt can be treated to all other modificiations outlined for $500. By the time a “state of the art” M-14 is put together (and this will include a custom barrel and stock), it is common for the price tag to near or exceed $2,500. Right, not everything is necessary in the eyes, or needs, of everyone, but my comparison stayed on the “upper” end of representative match AR-15s and M-14s.

And according to my gunsmith, Al Baker, who recently became a former USMC ‘smith, the fiberglass stocks do, indeed, exhibit condition induced shifts. This was proven to his satisfaction at Quantico. It’s not nearly the problem with wood, but fiberglass is not perfect. Temperature seemed to cause the most of it.

Velocity figures alluded to in the article were for JLK bullets, not Sierra! Sierras have a greater bearing susrface, and a couple of other design differences which do not allow them to attain the velocities of JLKs. Sierra is entirely correct in its manual and other published data. The Sierra 80-grain is better at 600 than its 168, but the JLK is markedly superior.

The 300-yard problem of having to shoot 69-grain Sierra bullets has a couple of answers. One is that Berger has new 70-grain and 73-grain LTBs (length tolerance bullets), which each have a higher ballistic coefficient than the Sierra 69. I don’t know which ballistics table you had on hand, but Sierra “devalued” the bc of the 168 in its latest 4th Edition Reloading Manual. It’s also possible to shoot one of the JLK or Berger 70-grain VLDs from the magazine, but some guns group with this tactic and some don’t. The bottom line, however, is that the Army doesn’t seem to find it as much of a disadvantage as some folks seem to think it is. They still get high-X cleans shooting 69 Sierras.

Your comment on the sight radius (which, for starters, is not a radius) just can’t be (or hasn’t been) proven in use. It’s mostly a convenient excuse for shooter error, in my opinion.

----------

More High Power
After devouring your recent article on “Tweaking the AR15 for High Power Use” in the April issue, I have several questions:

What is the barrel twist preferred for the M16 for military competitors and why? Can you give some possible handloads with which to try out the 80-grain bullet with an AR15 with a 1-in-7 twist?

Are trigger assemblies available for the M1A and the M1 Garand like the trigger for the AR15, and what do they generally cost?

This was a very informative article. Thanks for running it.

-George W. Britt, Jr.
Houston, TX

Mr. Zediker responds: The 1-in-8 twist seems to work best with 80-grain bullets; that’s what most “everybody” uses. The Colt 1-in-7 will do fine, and performance there is probably more dependent on “luck of the draw” in barrel quality than twist rate. A 1-in-9 will not work reliably with the long 80-grain bullets (and it’s bullet length, not weight, that really determines necessary twist).

I don’t give specific loads because of the many variables involved. For starters, are you using JLK, Sierra, or Berger 80-grain bullets? Data is not interchangeable on these different 80-grain bullets. Stick with what’s given in the manufacturer’s literature. At the least, be aware that the Sierra will peak out (pressure and speed) well before the JLK or Berger—never try a JLK load with a Sierra bullet. Reduce the charge at least one full grain to start. I will say that IMR4064, IMR4895, and VVN540 are good powders to try, and many people swear by Hodgdon’t Varget. Proceed carefully and don’t get greedy on speed. And don’t let the bullet jump too much. All the 80-grain bullets I’ve used like running up close to the lands. I strongly recommend getting Stoney Point’s Chamber-All Gauge so you’ll know this dimension in your particular barrel. It’s available from Sinclair International, Dept. PFS, 2330 Wayne Haven St., Fort Wayne, IN 46803, telephone (219) 493-2530.

Also, I know of no similar triggers for the rifles mentioned. M1A and M1 triggers can be tuned by a knowledgeable gunsmith to work exceedingly well. They just don’t have the flexibility of the Milazzo-Krieger.

----------

Want, Want, Want
I really like Performance Shooter! It provides both information and an unbiased (unhyped!) approach unavailable elsewhere. Please keep up the good work, and don’t let vendors bully you — tell it like it is!

I would like to see more of:

1. ISU-type shooting—how about an ISU pistol writer to complement Gary Anderson?

2. Tests/comparisons of more competitive pistols, say for example five to seven .22s in the $400 to $1,000 range. Having two to three guns in a test doesn’t reflect the choices that competitive shooters face. And if the guns are not tested side-by-side (but rather over a year or two) that’s not nearly as helpful either.

3. More on the mental aspects of competitive shooting. Would prefer a different writer than the current one, who seems to promote himself at the expense of specific useful information. Vague generalities don’t cut it.

Anyway, thanks for asking for the reader’s opinions.

-Name and Address Withheld

----------

Correcting Feeding Problems
I have a High Standard Victor that shoots beautifully, but is very finicky about what ammo it feeds correctly, even though I’m using the name brands. How can I fix it?

-Jimmy Schmits
Albuquerque, NM

.22 caliber rounds made by different manufacturers vary in their bullet thickness, bullet shape, and rim thickness, and it’s these variations that cause hang ups. The factory tests all High Standards for accuracy and function, but during testing, the magazine is adjusted to release the cartridge directly into the chamber so the bullet isn’t damaged. Differences in dimensions between your rounds and factory test fodder means the magazine needs to be retuned. If rounds hit high, the magazine’s rear lips must be tightened. If ammo hits low, the front lips need tightening. To make these adjustments, use smooth, parallel jawed pliers. Make changes slowly. If these tuning tips don’t work, look for a weak driving or magazine spring, a burr on the edge of the chamber, or a balky firing pin.

----------

Stop The Flood
Everywhere I look I see ads for knock-off SKS rifles, which in my mind aren’t performance rifles in any way, shape, or form, and which detract from the image of responsible gun ownership I like to uphold. How many millions of these guns are coming into this country from China, Russia, and elsewhere?

-Burt Sinson
Tuskegee, AL

Actually, SKS-style semi-autos make up only a small portion of the import market. In fact, government figures show that early last year, muzzleloading firearms led all import categories. Between 200,000 and 250,000 firearms have been imported in the last three years. The 1994 total was 259,975 units. In 1993, a total of 197,899 units were imported. Italy and Spain remain the leading source countries for the muzzleloading products, accounting for 69,275 and 57,761 sales, respectively.

Among bolt-action centerfire rifle importing countries, Japan and Belgium account for the most units, running 138,686 in 1993 and 96,791 in 1994. Italy imports the most autoloading and over/under shotgun guns, around 10,000 each year.