The M14. Not so great.

[clandestine]

Those open stocks around the OProd and gas assembly can allow nasty stuff in there though. IMO the factory style closed forends are a better design.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

As a younger guy into guns, I share the love of old world technology. I love a gun made of steel and wood and will outlast me. So in that sense the M14 speaks to me. However with SB281, I was forced to buy one and now feel somewhat differently.

I think the main issue with the M14 is the US Military. The old, one shot, one kill guys. The idea that accuracy is everything and every round should count. These types have constantly held back firearms Technology from front line use. I think its fair to say the M14 is everything the M1 Garand should have been! That is a Garand with a box mag. I have never been a fan boy of the Garand as I hated that 8 round clip. Its just horrible and thats proven out as it has never been copied since! The M14 is what we should have had in WWII and would have been the best firearm in the field after the MP44. The Russians understood the future and did not waste time on select fire full size rifle cartridge guns post war. They went with the SKS and then to the AK. However we could not let go of obsolete ideas. So we pushed a forward ignoring the facts. Even if you accept the 308 cartridge, which is really a cartridge that should have never been, the FAL and G3 are superior firearms. There is just no excuse that it took a politician and one general in the mid 60s to get us to where the Germans were in 1943.

As far as the rifle goes today... I had heard of the lore of the M14 and its accuracy. I am not target shooter. So I was thinking the M14 would be that balance between accuracy, firepower and old world technology. After all I don't want some plastic AR10. So I ended up buying an expensive LRB M25 receiver which has the scope rail integrated into the receiver. I thought this would fix the major issue with the M14 design in the modern world. Well not really. Parts are very expensive and very Picky! What does the tab measure on the op rod? How do you attach the front band and gas piston housing. Why does the front sight screw on? The upper hand guard does not fit well and should it? For a gun where the charm is old school tech, there is not one good wood stock make for it. Double lug or single lug. If double then the stock must be fat... I mean the list goes on and on. I now have the gun shooting with no optics and its the most expensive semi auto I own. I am probably still thousands of dollars from where I would want it to be!!!

So for me, the M14 is bitter sweet. I wanted a medium weight accurate full size suppressed rifle with a nice scope. Basically as close to a target gun as I could get without the weight of a target gun. I got one before SB281 and I am kind of sorry I did! I hate to sell it seeing that I can't get another. However I hate to keep it too! Oh and add a suppressor? Na its not good at that either. Its like have a boat, Break out another thousand. In the end the gun will have MG money in it and even if I spare no expense, the stock will still not be right when scoped, a suppressor will still not work well on it, an AR10 will still be more accurate and it will be the most expensive semi auto in my collection. Frankly I wish I had just bought a M14 clone to have the "vietnam" era gun represented or skipped it...

However the idea of making this gun into a modern firearm is not possible. No matter what you do, you can't adapt this one into the modern age. All you can do it spend twice as much of half way there... I know this... if SB281 was repealed tomorrow, the ads would go up two days from now with it for sale!

 

[byf43]

Like this? (less the tacti-cool camo stock, a cool MG)

Dang, that's purdy!!!!!!!!

Oh my...... I got wood............

 

[erwos]

*snip*

This was a surprisingly honest assessment of your purchase, and I thank you for writing it.

I also bought an M1A in the pre-panic rush. Mine was an older M1A Scout (falsely advertised as a "Bush" by J&G, but Springfield set me straight) police trade-in, with a couple USGI parts. It had some wear on it, but I think that's alright for the price I got it. When I took it out, it simply did not shoot to my modest expectations. I have not diagnosed the problem yet, but given the amount of wear, I strongly suspect stock fitment issues.

OTOH, this is a M1A Scout, so I don't really have high expectations of this thing anyways. I almost think that's an advantage of buying a SOCOM or a Scout - you're not going into it expecting a rifle that's going to win at Camp Perry.

I still don't know what I'm doing with it long term. I'm strongly tempted to use an Archangel stock, a Sadlak mount, and a SWFA SS 10x, and call it a day. I don't love the Archangel stock, but it's cheap, it has an adjustable cheek rest, and it fixes stock issues.

 

[jimbobborg]

if SB281 was repealed tomorrow, the ads would go up two days from now with it for sale!

You could always sell it down here

 

[IMBLITZVT]

This was a surprisingly honest assessment of your purchase, and I thank you for writing it.

I try not to lie to myself. I had this vision of what I was looking for. I was looking for a good sniper type rifle. Medium weight, accurate with optics. Not a target rifle but as accurate as I could. I love a good tradition wood stock, which this rifle has. I did not want a modern AR style gun. I wanted more of a traditional looking rifle. This was going to be my one sniper type gun in the collection. The M14 lore out there is pretty heavy. With little first hand knowledge, I researched what I could. I mean I bought the perfect receiver/barrel for what I wanted. I just did not realize I could not finish off the rifle in the same manner.

Once I got further into it, all the details of making an accurate rifle come into focus and its becomes absurd! Is there any other rifle in history thats not strickly a target rifle that gets this kind of rework to improve accuracy and does not end with a super accurate rifle?

Had I known then what I know now, I would have skipped any idea of making this into a sniper type rifle. I would have asked myself if I wanted the military M14 represented in my collection. If so, would have probably settle for a cheaper cast receiver like a Springfield or Fulton. Probably Fulton and done a military style build with the fake selector switch. I would have less than 1/3 the total final investment. However since I bought the M25 receiver, I have the scope mount, so its just not going to have the M14 look. So that path seems pointless.

I still don't know what I'm doing with it long term. I'm strongly tempted to use an Archangel stock, a Sadlak mount, and a SWFA SS 10x, and call it a day. I don't love the Archangel stock, but it's cheap, it has an adjustable cheek rest, and it fixes stock issues.

Me either. I have the gun firing. It seems to shoot ok but I have not put it on paper to see how well she is shooting. Kind of sad at had the gun for a year now. Seeing that the wood stock I want would be REALLY expensive, like $1K in the end, I might go for a plastic or metal stock. However I really don't like any of them. The shorty SOCOM M14s seem stupid to me. Whats the point? Going 308, its a long range gun...

You could always sell it down here

Yeah I can sell it, no issue but I can't replace it ever! So if I sell I will never have a M14 type gun at all, ever. So I can't really sell until I am sure I want to go that way and my kids will not miss it either...

So my plan now is nothing. Its shooting. I figure to get it where I want it to be I am probably looking at $1K on a wood stock with bedding. $500 of parts and random upgrades. $1000-$1500 on a scope and rings. Its still needs a lot of work. So its going to stay how it is now for a LONG time until I am bored with other things and need a project. So in 25 years or so... In the end this is going to be like a $5K semi auto rifle that I can't suppress and will be out shot by a $2.5K AR10...

 

[T-Man]

Just texted a friend who is stationed at Fort Bragg and can't tell me exactly which group he is assigned to. It narrows it down quite a bit.

The guys in his unit have more or less carte blanche when it comes to picking out weapons for missions. Some do like the M-14 and take them when the mission calls for it. He doesn't like 5.56, and prefers 7.62. He takes one on missions, when it is appropriate. Not the standard M-14, uses a composite stock and shorter (16" or 14") barrel. FWIW, he carries a Kimber .45 into combat as well.

Randy Shughart was using an M14 when he and Gary Gordon won the MoH in Somali. Seems some people are fans of the M14 in actual usage.

As a personal note, I am shocked, shocked I tell you that there are widely divergent opinions on a firearm.....with some thinking its the better then sliced bread and some thinking its terrible. This is unprecedented.

 

[dist1646]

I try not to lie to myself. I had this vision of what I was looking for. I was looking for a good sniper type rifle. Medium weight, accurate with optics. Not a target rifle but as accurate as I could. I love a good tradition wood stock, which this rifle has. I did not want a modern AR style gun. I wanted more of a traditional looking rifle. This was going to be my one sniper type gun in the collection. The M14 lore out there is pretty heavy. With little first hand knowledge, I researched what I could. I mean I bought the perfect receiver/barrel for what I wanted. I just did not realize I could not finish off the rifle in the same manner.

Once I got further into it, all the details of making an accurate rifle come into focus and its becomes absurd! Is there any other rifle in history thats not strickly a target rifle that gets this kind of rework to improve accuracy and does not end with a super accurate rifle?

Had I known then what I know now, I would have skipped any idea of making this into a sniper type rifle. I would have asked myself if I wanted the military M14 represented in my collection. If so, would have probably settle for a cheaper cast receiver like a Springfield or Fulton. Probably Fulton and done a military style build with the fake selector switch. I would have less than 1/3 the total final investment. However since I bought the M25 receiver, I have the scope mount, so its just not going to have the M14 look. So that path seems pointless.



Me either. I have the gun firing. It seems to shoot ok but I have not put it on paper to see how well she is shooting. Kind of sad at had the gun for a year now. Seeing that the wood stock I want would be REALLY expensive, like $1K in the end, I might go for a plastic or metal stock. However I really don't like any of them. The shorty SOCOM M14s seem stupid to me. Whats the point? Going 308, its a long range gun...



Yeah I can sell it, no issue but I can't replace it ever! So if I sell I will never have a M14 type gun at all, ever. So I can't really sell until I am sure I want to go that way and my kids will not miss it either...

So my plan now is nothing. Its shooting. I figure to get it where I want it to be I am probably looking at $1K on a wood stock with bedding. $500 of parts and random upgrades. $1000-$1500 on a scope and rings. Its still needs a lot of work. So its going to stay how it is now for a LONG time until I am bored with other things and need a project. So in 25 years or so... In the end this is going to be like a $5K semi auto rifle that I can't suppress and will be out shot by a $2.5K AR10...

Battle rifles are not sniper rifles. True sniper rifles are basically target rifles. How can you say that your rifle is not accurate and then say that you have not shot it on paper? You should get some good ammo, not surplus junk, and shoot it on paper to see what it will do for you. It really isn't rocket science to build an M14 type rifle that will, in all likelihood, out shoot the person behind the butt. $1000,00 for a wood M1A stock, even if bedded is outrageous! McMillan's don't run that much! Some of the newer modular tactical stocks can be pricey though. I have never put more than $1800 into any of my M14 type rifles, including the initial cost of the receiver. I will probably exceed that cost when I finish my latest build but, even then, it will be well under $2400. If I were to want to add a scope, it would add the cost of the mount and what ever the cost of the scope would be. I had an AR10T and it was such a POS that I got rid of it. Maybe they have made improvements since then but, my M1A's would shoot well inside of the one I had.

 

[clandestine]

As a younger guy into guns, I share the love of old world technology. I love a gun made of steel and wood and will outlast me. So in that sense the M14 speaks to me. However with SB281, I was forced to buy one and now feel somewhat differently.

I think the main issue with the M14 is the US Military. The old, one shot, one kill guys. The idea that accuracy is everything and every round should count. These types have constantly held back firearms Technology from front line use. I think its fair to say the M14 is everything the M1 Garand should have been! That is a Garand with a box mag. I have never been a fan boy of the Garand as I hated that 8 round clip. Its just horrible and thats proven out as it has never been copied since! The M14 is what we should have had in WWII and would have been the best firearm in the field after the MP44. The Russians understood the future and did not waste time on select fire full size rifle cartridge guns post war. They went with the SKS and then to the AK. However we could not let go of obsolete ideas. So we pushed a forward ignoring the facts. Even if you accept the 308 cartridge, which is really a cartridge that should have never been, the FAL and G3 are superior firearms. There is just no excuse that it took a politician and one general in the mid 60s to get us to where the Germans were in 1943.

As far as the rifle goes today... I had heard of the lore of the M14 and its accuracy. I am not target shooter. So I was thinking the M14 would be that balance between accuracy, firepower and old world technology. After all I don't want some plastic AR10. So I ended up buying an expensive LRB M25 receiver which has the scope rail integrated into the receiver. I thought this would fix the major issue with the M14 design in the modern world. Well not really. Parts are very expensive and very Picky! What does the tab measure on the op rod? How do you attach the front band and gas piston housing. Why does the front sight screw on? The upper hand guard does not fit well and should it? For a gun where the charm is old school tech, there is not one good wood stock make for it. Double lug or single lug. If double then the stock must be fat... I mean the list goes on and on. I now have the gun shooting with no optics and its the most expensive semi auto I own. I am probably still thousands of dollars from where I would want it to be!!!

So for me, the M14 is bitter sweet. I wanted a medium weight accurate full size suppressed rifle with a nice scope. Basically as close to a target gun as I could get without the weight of a target gun. I got one before SB281 and I am kind of sorry I did! I hate to sell it seeing that I can't get another. However I hate to keep it too! Oh and add a suppressor? Na its not good at that either. Its like have a boat, Break out another thousand. In the end the gun will have MG money in it and even if I spare no expense, the stock will still not be right when scoped, a suppressor will still not work well on it, an AR10 will still be more accurate and it will be the most expensive semi auto in my collection. Frankly I wish I had just bought a M14 clone to have the "vietnam" era gun represented or skipped it...

However the idea of making this gun into a modern firearm is not possible. No matter what you do, you can't adapt this one into the modern age. All you can do it spend twice as much of half way there... I know this... if SB281 was repealed tomorrow, the ads would go up two days from now with it for sale!

Very thorough and reasoned response. I enjoyed the read.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Battle rifles are not sniper rifles. True sniper rifles are basically target rifles. How can you say that your rifle is not accurate and then say that you have not shot it on paper?

Battle rifles are often converted for this role as they offer quick follow up shots. Target guns are usually fitted to the shooter. The military traditional does not do this. They just work on making it as accurate as possible and scope it. Thats what I was looking for. I want a gun I can still move with.

You should get some good ammo, not surplus junk, and shoot it on paper to see what it will do for you. It really isn't rocket science to build an M14 type rifle that will, in all likelihood, out shoot the person behind the butt.

We will see but I have not scoped it yet, so I am not really that concerned yet. What difference does it make what I can do with Irons compared to a nice scoped M25...

$1000,00 for a wood M1A stock, even if bedded is outrageous!

Not if you are scoping it! Find me a solution with a raised cheek rest that does not look like sh@t. I don't want a sand bag strapped to it. I don't want some U shaped piece of black plastic on it either. I am talking a raised cheek rest like you would find on a Shotgun. Or maybe like the springfield M21 stock but not a target stock. So we are talking custom stock with risers fitted and bedded... yeah I am getting around $1K by the time I am done. Thats with me doing some of the work.

McMillan's don't run that much! Some of the newer modular tactical stocks can be pricey though.

McMills are not wood either or often made for scope. There are some new metal stocks that could work. However I personally think they are ugly. The plastic pistol grip they slab on just looks horrible. Looks like some tacticool gun when you are done. No I bought it to have that traditional look...

I have never put more than $1800 into any of my M14 type rifles, including the initial cost of the receiver. I will probably exceed that cost when I finish my latest build but, even then, it will be well under $2400.

I have $1750 in the Barreled LRB M25 receiver with fitted bolt and SS Crit Barrel.... Just parts kits are like $1K these days with crappy stocks. Did I mention how crappy Military stocks look on these guns with the FA switch hole? Even if filled when bedding the stock... still looks like crap. Like a stock repair. The only good solution is the fake FA switch they sell and then again... like $250 for a FAKE switch for the looks. You are just not going to build a rifle that cheap given todays prices with good barrels and forged receivers.

I had an AR10T and it was such a POS that I got rid of it. Maybe they have made improvements since then but, my M1A's would shoot well inside of the one I had.

I don't pretend to know more about AR10s... however by everyones account but yours, AR10s easily out shoot M14s for a lot less money.

Very thorough and reasoned response. I enjoyed the read.

Thanks, Glad you like it. I am glad you posted it. You hear only one side on some of these guns. Then you get into it and its different. I mean I can understand how guys getting Mattel M16 poodle shooters felt the M14 was so much better. Then add in the early powder and cleaning issues... Yeah I get it. However those issues are long solved and don't make the M14 any better. It was out dated when introduced. Yes it may be the top end of the traditional stocked (non-Pistol grip) rifles. However if you are putting it up against anything besides WWII rifles, its falling short. If you are trying to bring it into the modern era, I think you are going to be broke and disappointed... as I have found out.

If you ask me, no modern gun, short of a target gun, should not be able to be adapted to suppressors easily or hard to fit with modern optics. They are standard issue today and the M14 platform can't be updated to handle this. IMHO.

 

[HokieKev]

I've really enjoyed reading this thread. I was just watching this hickock45 video the other day where he reviewed the M1A Scout Squad and feeling pangs of regret that I did not get this or Socom in before the 2013 ban.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y_0hW0p5Nfg

I guess if I ever move to a free state and get one in the future perhaps I'll just leave it "stock" unimproved and love it for what it is. Not try to improve it into something modern it can't really easily achieve...

 

[Scott7891]

As a younger guy into guns, I share the love of old world technology. I love a gun made of steel and wood and will outlast me. So in that sense the M14 speaks to me. However with SB281, I was forced to buy one and now feel somewhat differently.

I think the main issue with the M14 is the US Military. The old, one shot, one kill guys. The idea that accuracy is everything and every round should count. These types have constantly held back firearms Technology from front line use. I think its fair to say the M14 is everything the M1 Garand should have been! That is a Garand with a box mag. I have never been a fan boy of the Garand as I hated that 8 round clip. Its just horrible and thats proven out as it has never been copied since! The M14 is what we should have had in WWII and would have been the best firearm in the field after the MP44. The Russians understood the future and did not waste time on select fire full size rifle cartridge guns post war. They went with the SKS and then to the AK. However we could not let go of obsolete ideas. So we pushed a forward ignoring the facts. Even if you accept the 308 cartridge, which is really a cartridge that should have never been, the FAL and G3 are superior firearms. There is just no excuse that it took a politician and one general in the mid 60s to get us to where the Germans were in 1943.

As far as the rifle goes today... I had heard of the lore of the M14 and its accuracy. I am not target shooter. So I was thinking the M14 would be that balance between accuracy, firepower and old world technology. After all I don't want some plastic AR10. So I ended up buying an expensive LRB M25 receiver which has the scope rail integrated into the receiver. I thought this would fix the major issue with the M14 design in the modern world. Well not really. Parts are very expensive and very Picky! What does the tab measure on the op rod? How do you attach the front band and gas piston housing. Why does the front sight screw on? The upper hand guard does not fit well and should it? For a gun where the charm is old school tech, there is not one good wood stock make for it. Double lug or single lug. If double then the stock must be fat... I mean the list goes on and on. I now have the gun shooting with no optics and its the most expensive semi auto I own. I am probably still thousands of dollars from where I would want it to be!!!

So for me, the M14 is bitter sweet. I wanted a medium weight accurate full size suppressed rifle with a nice scope. Basically as close to a target gun as I could get without the weight of a target gun. I got one before SB281 and I am kind of sorry I did! I hate to sell it seeing that I can't get another. However I hate to keep it too! Oh and add a suppressor? Na its not good at that either. Its like have a boat, Break out another thousand. In the end the gun will have MG money in it and even if I spare no expense, the stock will still not be right when scoped, a suppressor will still not work well on it, an AR10 will still be more accurate and it will be the most expensive semi auto in my collection. Frankly I wish I had just bought a M14 clone to have the "vietnam" era gun represented or skipped it...

However the idea of making this gun into a modern firearm is not possible. No matter what you do, you can't adapt this one into the modern age. All you can do it spend twice as much of half way there... I know this... if SB281 was repealed tomorrow, the ads would go up two days from now with it for sale!

Excellent post.

However I think I found a solution to your dilemma.

http://shuffsparkerizing.com/services/mag-fed-garand/

They will modify a Garand for you so you can use M14 mags and it will be everything you seem to want it to be while still being Maryland legal since it is not an M14.

I've really enjoyed reading this thread. I was just watching this hickock45 video the other day where he reviewed the M1A Scout Squad and feeling pangs of regret that I did not get this or Socom in before the 2013 ban.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y_0hW0p5Nfg

I guess if I ever move to a free state and get one in the future perhaps I'll just leave it "stock" unimproved and love it for what it is. Not try to improve it into something modern it can't really easily achieve...

That is why I am glad I have my Polytech rifle. Paid less than $900 for it and shoot/love it for what it is not expecting much but just to have a M14. I refuse to pay several grand for a "better" one when it is based on outdated technology with the exception of being collectible/rare like a G43 for example or heck even a BM-59 especially when M14's are quite common.

 

[Jed195]

I've got a SOCOM and I've heard the "what's the point of a 16 inch 7.62/308 gun" folks. I think this is, to me anyway, a great configuration. I humped a full size with a woodland camo, USGI fiberglass stock and 6 magazines around for a while in the Marines. I stood over watch a lot and on several occasions rendered several technicals (Toyota Landcruisers with crew served weapons mounted on them) useless with a few 173 grain Nato rounds into the engine compartment, like my First Sergeant use to say "trucks don't run so good once you start shooting holes in them". Try that with a 5.56 of any bullet weight. I like the SOCOM because it's more like a scout rifle except semi automatic, short in length, powerful round and quite capable of hitting a man sized target out to 450 yards/meters. I've consistently hit cans of beer at 100 yards and even shot a tennis ball off the top of a target stand at the same distance with iron sights. Everybody has their favorite brand of blue jeans, shoes and cars and not everyone is good with certain platforms. Find what works for you and learn it inside out and backwards and in the dark. I'd rather be really good with a gun that nobody likes than mediocre with a gun everyone owns because they it's popular. Is it loud and does it put some impressive fireballs out of the business end, hell yes!

 

[trbon8r]

Good grief, some of you guys really should have done more homework on the M14 before dismissing the rifle or worse yet sinking money into a rifle you don't understand.

Not enough stock options for the M14? How about NOS GI wood, new Boyds wood, heavy match walnut, laminate, GI fiberglass, carbon fiber, VLTOR (combination of GI fiberglass with modern AR type stock), SAGE chassis, Troy, McMillan, folding stocks, even a freaking bullpup is available.

Lets talk op rod tab measurement. This is only an issue if buying a used op rod. The op rod tab does wear after several thousand rounds. In any case there are several reputable sources that recondition M14 op rods by welding up the tab and reparking the op rod. They work fine. Want a new op rod? No problem, there are reputable vendors for those too. Myth busted.

Gas cylinder "fitting" is not a problem either. For a match conditioned M14 the front band is either "screwed and glued" (Army method) or welded (Marine Corps method.) This is an easy and simple mod that works just as well on a field gun as it does a match rifle with zero compromises in reliability or durability. Myth busted.

Why does the front sight screw on? Why shouldn't it? The M1's front sight was the same and I never heard anyone complain. I can set the rear sight to mechanical zero, and then drift the front sight for windage when I zero the rifle. Once I have the rifle zeroed I can torque down the front sight so I have full usage of the windage adjustment in my rear sight. I've never had a front sight come loose. Myth busted.

The M14 is finicky and "shoots loose." First of all the M14 doesn't have to be bedded to be accurate. Using a cheap GI fiberglass stock, a properly set up M14 should shoot 2 MOA or better. Need more accuracy for a precision rifle? The modern steel bedding compounds combined with rear and double lug receivers are good for around 5k rounds before needing to be inspected and skim bedded. By then the usable competition or precision sniping accuracy of the barrel is declining and the rifle is ready for maintenance anyway. Yes the bedding is a maintenance item, but doesn't exactly make the rifle some dainty little rose as some suggest. Things have changed since the original M21. Biggest myth busted.

The M14 is a bitch to scope and was never designed for optics. Well actually that isn't true. If the M14 was never designed for optics then what is that threaded hole and dovetail on the left side of the receiver for? Yes, the original mounts worked loose and sucked hard. Again things have changed ARMS, Sadlak and others make rock solid mounts that work just fine. Myth busted.

The M14's detractors are right about one thing. It is old world technology, albeit still effective technology. That means they aren't cheap. If you want to get into that world you have to really want one, and you have to be willing to pay for a quality rifle. Me, I'm closing in on being an old phucker. That means I have CMP M14 parts stashed away from back when op rods used to be $40. For me I don't care how much it costs. I know what I like and what works for me.

Some of you guys sound like the old coots that hate ARs and think technology stopped on the M16 in 1967. While the M14 hasn't been produced since the '60s that doesn't mean there hasn't been further development and improvement. Hmm, it almost sounds like I'm talking about the AR......

I'll go ahead and thank myself now for my thorough and reasoned response.

 

[aquaman]

Trbon, if the army spent millions and couldn't get satisfactory results why should others go down that dead end? Save it for m14 forum fudds

 

[teratos]

I have an M1A I got from Duffy's. They built it. Springfield receiver, and the rest of the parts are GI. I love the gun. It is a pleasure to shoot and more accurate than I am. Love the gun. Would I use it for SHTF? Nope. I know what I was buying, it was exactly what I wanted.

 

[trbon8r]

Trbon, if the army spent millions and couldn't get satisfactory results why should others go down that dead end? Save it for m14 forum fudds

Thanks for that non-substantive pearl of wisdom.

 

[aquaman]

Thanks for that non-substantive pearl of wisdom.

You should actually read the links chad posted instead of digging up pictures of heroin addicts from west Baltimore

 

[trbon8r]

Oh and by the way, who spends all that money on a LRB M25 receiver for a precision rifle build and then sticks a freaking Criterion barrel on it? Criterion makes a darn good rack grade barrel, but when you are sinking that much money into a precision gun, why cheap out on the barrel? You should have been thinking about Criterion's parent company (Krieger), Hart, or Douglas for your barrel needs.

Again, some newbs would have been better off asking around, planning their build, and getting some advice before throwing their money away on a rifle they don't understand and then coming on here to whine about it.

 

[trbon8r]

You should actually read the links chad posted instead of digging up pictures of heroin addicts from west Baltimore

I see why your name is aquaman, your job is to carry the water.

Got anymore one liners to contribute? I mean that is all you have contributed so far.