The M14. Not so great.

[aquaman]

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.

Go read the links and get the sand out, don't be the emotional fan boi.

 

[molonlabe]

Shooting test from my brother in law who served as an armor and was a marine who taught recon in Pendleton in 61,65. He preferred to carry an m an m14. He can shoot the snot out of my national match. I took him once to the range and he shot my glock after putting the target out as far as he could in an indoor range. He grouped all in the black he did not shoot for over 30 years. Impressed me.
He listed the weapons as they failed testing he performed at Pendleton.
The M3 failed first
followed by the m16
Followed by the Thompson ( I can't warp my brain around that one).
The M14 was firing at the end of test.

 

[Augie]

I don't worry much about SHTF situations so my preference is for the M14. I own both a Fulton Service Grade M14 back when they were built with GI parts and a Colt Match target AR15, both rifles have functioned flawlessly. I enjoy shooting the M14 more and it will hold under 2 moa with the iron sights about the same as what I can do with the Colts irons.
One of my best friends was in Vietnam when the transitioned from M14's to M16's, after a couple patrols they were demanding their M14's back and to this day he wants nothing to do with the AR platform or the 5.56 cartridge.
The biggest mistake the military made with the M14 was requiring it to be select fire, it is to light for sustained full auto use and in most hands virtually uncontrollable. Most were converted to semi auto only.
The M14 does not take to home gunsmithing as easily as the AR15, you really have to understand how it works and how various components fit together. In my limited experience a M14 set up by a competent armorer will be as reliable as anything else out there. Not set up correctly and it will be an unreliable beast.
Another issue is with the various commercial receiver manufacturers out there is they each have their own little quirks when it comes to building up a rifle, each one will need some adjustment or tweak to build a well functioning rifle.
I'll stick with my M14 but then again I'm an old guy that prefers steel and wood over plastic, wish I did not live in this idiotic state so a could order a Fulton Peerless Grade target M14, that one is high on my wish list.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

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.

I think I acknowledged that point! However with SB281 it became a now or never... So I learned what I could as fast as I could... As I said I think I did fine selection with the receiver given what I wanted.

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.

Not what was said. I said the WOOD stock options for a scoped rifle suck! Either you end up with a sandbag strapped to your gun (I know its not really sand), or a plastic ugly riser or expensive custom. Yes there are a lot of options but find me a good, non-target (ie non-oversized) wood stock that will work well with a scope with nothing custom added. I would love a good answer there!

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.

No Myth, to complete the gun you general buy a USGI parts kit. So then you have to worry about this tab. Just another PITA thing to worry about on an expensive part. Its a shot in the dark. Also after market OP Rods don't have a great reputation either... so again another thing to worry about.

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.

Again no myth, just another issue. Well do I want screwed and glued or welded. Which is better? Do I need it at all. WHY THE HELL do I need to do this? What about use with Suppressors? Just another issue unique to the gun.

Why does the front sight screw on? Why shouldn't it?

Hmm... I can only think about 1000 reasons why a part as critical should not be screwed on. Must less to the end of a Machine gun barrel.

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.

Oh ok, sorry to confuse. I am not talking drift screw. I am asking why the front sight block is screwed to the muzzle. Just seems like a very poor was to mount it. It actually makes it very easy for home builds but seriously... why?

The M14 is finicky and "shoots loose." First of all the M14 doesn't have to be bedded to be accurate.

Sorry, you are the only one making that statement.

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.

Ok new point. To get rear lugged or not? Oh yes, now limit your stock options to target stocks because the rear lug will not fit a standard stock. Do I need rear lug? Why was rear lug invented? Now I must pick a stock based on which style receiver I have but they are both M14 receivers....

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.

I don't think I have the knowledge to comment on this but it seems to me that the thing that has changed the most is the move away from the M14 platform....

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.

You know there is a scope mount on the side of my 1919a4 too. However everyone suggests moving to the M25 receiver if you want to scope this rifle. This was one area I was able to address before buying. So I thought I had worked it out. That said, there is still an issue with the scope being mounted to high on the rifle to be able to get a nice stock to work.

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.

Yes the old world construction is nice. However give me a break, Old timers are always bitching about prices when they have to buy something. When you buy a $300 op rod... yeah we will hear about it.

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.

Fair question and a hard decision for me. First you must understand at the time, every dollar spent here was one less for other "to be banned guns". I was looking at the value. If I was going to have the barrel installed and the bolt fitted professionally, then the price of getting a barreled receiver really cut down the cost of the receiver. So it was like $800 for the receiver when Fulton was getting $550 for theirs. With me knowing I wanted to scope it, it seemed to make a lot of sense for a $800 M25 receiver. The feedback I got from the M14 forum and my hurried research indicated that if I was not making a target gun, the Krieger was over kill. I knew I did not want a fatter target stock. So I was not rear lugging the receiver. So the Crit barrel was good enough. Or at least that was the logic... for better or worse. However I was really on the fence here. I figured if I was really unhappy, I could rebarrel post SB281. However I already had a LOT Of money into this and adding rear lug and Krieger would have put just the barreled receiver and bolt over $2K. If I would have had more time to figure out what I wanted, I might have gone for the Krieger barrel... however its more likely I would have just gotten a standard M14 with a standard barrel for a USGI build... as I explained.

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.

Oh I agree. However with SB281... what would you have us do? It was not like we were panic buying. It really was now or never. The M14 was the gun I was going to buy and build 20 years from now. However life did not work out that way. That said, I think I did a good job researching and ended up with the perfect receiver for what I wanted. The barrel I think will be ok. So I am not whining about that. What I did not count on is the number of fairly expensive upgrades. The lore of the gun is that its a rock solid really accurate rifle. I think anyone can see but the list of upgrades needed that its not actually the case. Even when fully upgraded, everyone pretty much agrees its going to be out shot by an AR10. Its not easy to suppress. Its not easy to scope. Its not easy to find a nice traditional stock for a scoped gun. If you want plastic stocks, why not go with an AR10 to start? However I think the main point is that there is not really another rifle that seems as hard to build into a good shooting accurate firearm. Its very expensive to do and the value you get is not great. The platform is just not as well suited for modern applications. That I think is the Myth that was busted for me.

 

[dist1646]

I have only owned 7 M1A's so, I probably don't know much about them.

 

[clandestine]

To be fair, I mentioned them shooting loose, and they do. Other battle rifles and AR based designed guns don't require skim beding the receiver or stock after 5k rounds. I would venture to say that most of the M14 type owners here would not be able to do that without sending it out to a smith.

IMO, as a Smith myslf, that's a huge downside.

I have the same view of many weapons in regards to requiring gunsmiths and expensive parts.

 

[jimbobborg]

To be fair, I mentioned them shooting loose, and they do. Other battle rifles and AR based designed guns don't require skim beding the receiver or stock after 5k rounds. I would venture to say that most of the M14 type owners here would be able to do that without sending it out to a smith.

IMO, as a Smith myslf, that's a huge downside.

I have the same view of many weapons in regards to requiring gunsmiths and expensive parts.

When you say shooting loose, are you talking about the action inside the stock? Isn't that more of a problem with the wood stocks versus synthetic stocks? I've noticed this problem with my Mini-14 when it had a wood stock, too many time field stripped for cleaning and the wood supporting the receiver tended to get worn down.

 

[clandestine]

When you say shooting loose, are you talking about the action inside the stock? Isn't that more of a problem with the wood stocks versus synthetic stocks? I've noticed this problem with my Mini-14 when it had a wood stock, too many time field stripped for cleaning and the wood supporting the receiver tended to get worn down.

Yez, action in the stock loosening up. I can't comment on a minI in regards to a m14. That's like comparing a gas piston conversion AR to a legacy internal piston AR. Different animals even though they look similar in some ways.

 

[jimbobborg]

Yez, action in the stock loosening up. I can't comment on a minI in regards to a m14. That's like comparing a gas piston conversion AR to a legacy internal piston AR. Different animals even though they look similar in some ways.

Semi-auto in a wood stock, similar action, too. Not being argumentative, just pointing that out. Wood looks great, but doesn't take to hundreds of rounds and bouncing back. It also expands and contracts with humidity levels.

 

[molonlabe]

I've never removed my NM from the beading because it will loosen it. This does not allow me to clean it properly but hey. I don't have to rebed it.

 

[5.56blaster]

All things aside. While deployed I watched bad guys get shot with 5.56mm and keep going. I watched bad guys get shot with .308 and not even twitch after being hit, just lay there in a lump. .308 puts a hurting on the human body that 5.56mm doesn't. Granted I don't want to be on the wrong end of any of them but .308 kills bugs dead.

 

[Magnumite]

"... .308 kills bugs dead."

That's one decisive way of putting it.

 

[dreadpirate]

So if SHTF, grab the PTR91 and leave the M1A in the safe.

Good info.

My thoughts as well.

 

[trbon8r]

I think I acknowledged that point! However with SB281 it became a now or never... So I learned what I could as fast as I could... As I said I think I did fine selection with the receiver given what I wanted.



Not what was said. I said the WOOD stock options for a scoped rifle suck! Either you end up with a sandbag strapped to your gun (I know its not really sand), or a plastic ugly riser or expensive custom. Yes there are a lot of options but find me a good, non-target (ie non-oversized) wood stock that will work well with a scope with nothing custom added. I would love a good answer there!



No Myth, to complete the gun you general buy a USGI parts kit. So then you have to worry about this tab. Just another PITA thing to worry about on an expensive part. Its a shot in the dark. Also after market OP Rods don't have a great reputation either... so again another thing to worry about.



Again no myth, just another issue. Well do I want screwed and glued or welded. Which is better? Do I need it at all. WHY THE HELL do I need to do this? What about use with Suppressors? Just another issue unique to the gun.



Hmm... I can only think about 1000 reasons why a part as critical should not be screwed on. Must less to the end of a Machine gun barrel.



Oh ok, sorry to confuse. I am not talking drift screw. I am asking why the front sight block is screwed to the muzzle. Just seems like a very poor was to mount it. It actually makes it very easy for home builds but seriously... why?



Sorry, you are the only one making that statement.



Ok new point. To get rear lugged or not? Oh yes, now limit your stock options to target stocks because the rear lug will not fit a standard stock. Do I need rear lug? Why was rear lug invented? Now I must pick a stock based on which style receiver I have but they are both M14 receivers....



I don't think I have the knowledge to comment on this but it seems to me that the thing that has changed the most is the move away from the M14 platform....



You know there is a scope mount on the side of my 1919a4 too. However everyone suggests moving to the M25 receiver if you want to scope this rifle. This was one area I was able to address before buying. So I thought I had worked it out. That said, there is still an issue with the scope being mounted to high on the rifle to be able to get a nice stock to work.



Yes the old world construction is nice. However give me a break, Old timers are always bitching about prices when they have to buy something. When you buy a $300 op rod... yeah we will hear about it.



Fair question and a hard decision for me. First you must understand at the time, every dollar spent here was one less for other "to be banned guns". I was looking at the value. If I was going to have the barrel installed and the bolt fitted professionally, then the price of getting a barreled receiver really cut down the cost of the receiver. So it was like $800 for the receiver when Fulton was getting $550 for theirs. With me knowing I wanted to scope it, it seemed to make a lot of sense for a $800 M25 receiver. The feedback I got from the M14 forum and my hurried research indicated that if I was not making a target gun, the Krieger was over kill. I knew I did not want a fatter target stock. So I was not rear lugging the receiver. So the Crit barrel was good enough. Or at least that was the logic... for better or worse. However I was really on the fence here. I figured if I was really unhappy, I could rebarrel post SB281. However I already had a LOT Of money into this and adding rear lug and Krieger would have put just the barreled receiver and bolt over $2K. If I would have had more time to figure out what I wanted, I might have gone for the Krieger barrel... however its more likely I would have just gotten a standard M14 with a standard barrel for a USGI build... as I explained.



Oh I agree. However with SB281... what would you have us do? It was not like we were panic buying. It really was now or never. The M14 was the gun I was going to buy and build 20 years from now. However life did not work out that way. That said, I think I did a good job researching and ended up with the perfect receiver for what I wanted. The barrel I think will be ok. So I am not whining about that. What I did not count on is the number of fairly expensive upgrades. The lore of the gun is that its a rock solid really accurate rifle. I think anyone can see but the list of upgrades needed that its not actually the case. Even when fully upgraded, everyone pretty much agrees its going to be out shot by an AR10. Its not easy to suppress. Its not easy to scope. Its not easy to find a nice traditional stock for a scoped gun. If you want plastic stocks, why not go with an AR10 to start? However I think the main point is that there is not really another rifle that seems as hard to build into a good shooting accurate firearm. Its very expensive to do and the value you get is not great. The platform is just not as well suited for modern applications. That I think is the Myth that was busted for me.

Back from vacation and I can finally respond to this mess.

Other than an AR there aren't too many rifles you can dress in different stocks like you can an M14. Not doing your homework on your build and deciding on something as basic as the stock you will be using is your fault, not the design of the M14. There are lots of options available today. If you wanted a wood stock with a riser you should have made sure one was available in the configuration you desired before taking the plunge on a build. It's the same as if you decided to build an AR then got upset there was no side folding stock available. With the plethora of stocks available for a precision M14 build, it makes no sense to me why anyone would limit themselves to a wood stock anyway. Just like technology has progressed in the AR world since the late '60s, it has moved on for the M14 as well.

Fulton and others DO make forged op rods that are brand new and very serviceable. If you want GI, NOS to excellent+ condition op rods are available, but they aren't cheap. If you look back you will never see that I claimed the M14 is a rifle for the budget conscious. Nor is a precision AR10 for that matter. As I mentioned GI retabbed op rods are available and work just fine.

Which method is better for unitizing a gas cylinder? Both work fine, so pick one. Why is it a good mod? Same reason a free float handguard on an AR is a good mod. Not sure where you are going with the question about using a suppressor with a NM gas cylinder? Unitizing a gas cylinder has nothing to do with using a suppressor or functioning with a suppressor attached to the rifle. Once again, you would have been well served in doing some homework here.

When you complain about the front sight "screwing on" if you aren't referring to the front sight itself, you must be referring to the flash suppressor castle nut? The suppressor engages splines on the barrel that keeps it from rotating, the castle nut tightens the suppressor to the barrel, and then a set screw makes sure the castle nut doesn't come loose. It isn't going anywhere. This is non issue, and not a problem I have ever heard of.

Rear lug, single lug, or double lug. Again, not a big deal. Unless you want to change stocks like some woman changes her shoes or purses, it doesn't matter. Do your homework and figure out what you want the rifle to accomplish. This will determine the stock you will be using. Then choose the proper receiver for your needs and be done with it. It's really that simple.

No doubt about it, scopes do sit high on an M14. There are many stocks that resolve this issue, McMillan, JAE, SAGE, VLTOR, and others. If you want a traditional type stock, yes it will require a riser of some sort. This really shouldn't have come as some surprise. Rock solid, reliable scope mounts are available from at least 3 manufacturers I can think of.

No "everyone" doesn't agree that a precision AR10 is going to automatically outshoot an accurized M14. AR10s aren't the automatic laser their proponents make them out to be, and as the Army M110 program proves, the .308 AR rifle has its own set of problems. Truth be told, both rifles are capable of excellent accuracy. They are two different means to the same end. I guess that is why they have Santa Anita. I can bet on one horse and you can bet on the other.

 

[Jed195]

To be fair, I mentioned them shooting loose, and they do. Other battle rifles and AR based designed guns don't require skim beding the receiver or stock after 5k rounds. I would venture to say that most of the M14 type owners here would not be able to do that without sending it out to a smith.

IMO, as a Smith myslf, that's a huge downside.

I have the same view of many weapons in regards to requiring gunsmiths and expensive parts.

Have you seen the Blackfeather RS? This stock doesn't seem like it would allow for much slop. Another newly released stock is a carbon fiber stock from AG composites gets some really good reviews on M14 forum. Curious what your take is on an old platform like the m14 being brought into this century with newer, better fitting stocks made from materials less susceptible to the elements. The first stock that got my attention was the SAGE ALCS but I was waiting for something a little less "futuristic" looking.

 

[rico903]

To be fair, I mentioned them shooting loose, and they do. Other battle rifles and AR based designed guns don't require skim beding the receiver or stock after 5k rounds. I would venture to say that most of the M14 type owners here would not be able to do that without sending it out to a smith.

IMO, as a Smith myslf, that's a huge downside.

I have the same view of many weapons in regards to requiring gunsmiths and expensive parts.

Looking at your new Avatar. Are you back to Smithing at Scotts?

 

[MY225]

Used both,the M14(as well as M1A's) and M16, both have gotten the job done. Used both in hot and sandy places, wet and coastal and as well as dense and humid. Had some issue with both at different times, but pushed through them. I believe it's all in training/maintenance.

Still shoot both M1A's and AR15's.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Back from vacation and I can finally respond to this mess.

Haha... Hope you had a good vacation!

Other than an AR there aren't too many rifles you can dress in different stocks like you can an M14. Not doing your homework on your build and deciding on something as basic as the stock you will be using is your fault, not the design of the M14. There are lots of options available today. If you wanted a wood stock with a riser you should have made sure one was available in the configuration you desired before taking the plunge on a build.

As discussed the time for research was limited. I did what I could. Yes learning every single detail would have been better. However some things you really don't fully understand until you do it. I think this really might fall into that. I saw wood stocks with risers. What I did not know was they were for double lug receivers and are extra wide. Yes lots and lots of research might have enlightened me to that issue but being new to the game, I think it was pretty easy to miss. Not really knowing M14s, there are no other guns out there with this type of an issue. Its not really something you can see in pictures. I would have to guess I did more research than 99% of first time M14 buyers... so I am guessing pretty much everyone would miss this.

It's the same as if you decided to build an AR then got upset there was no side folding stock available.

Not really, that would show a basic lack of understanding of how a M16 works. There is absolutely no physical limitation on what I am looking for. Just no one makes one. I can have it custom built. You still can't get a custom folder on an M16...

With the plethora of stocks available for a precision M14 build, it makes no sense to me why anyone would limit themselves to a wood stock anyway. Just like technology has progressed in the AR world since the late '60s, it has moved on for the M14 as well.

Why not? I love a nice wood stock. If I wanted plastic, I would not have been buying the M14 to begin with. The whole appeal to me was the old world wood and steel!

Fulton and others DO make forged op rods... As I mentioned GI retabbed op rods are available and work just fine.

Granted but one more issue thats pretty specifically only a m14 issue. How can you tell a USGI Op Rod is in spec before you buy? Pretty much got to be lucky.

Which method is better for unitizing a gas cylinder? Both work fine, so pick one....

Pick one based on what? Should I let my 3 year old decide for me?

....Unitizing a gas cylinder has nothing to do with using a suppressor or functioning with a suppressor attached to the rifle. Once again, you would have been well served in doing some homework here.

I stopped my research in this area but aren't they working an adjustable gas block for suppressor use? I can't remember where I saw more info on this and don't care to spend time finding it now. However I remember it making issues to Unitizing the gas block because you screw into or weld up areas needed for this adjustment. Its been a year so maybe I am well off here.

... the castle nut tightens the suppressor to the barrel, and then a set screw makes sure the castle nut doesn't come loose. It isn't going anywhere. This is non issue, and not a problem I have ever heard of.

Yes the whole unit screws on. Well do you snug the castle nut? Then the set screw does not tighten on a groove. If not then the piece is very slightly loose. Again why? In my experience any screw can work loose. You are better off with something other than screws or even screws with set screws.

Rear lug, single lug, or double lug. Again, not a big deal. Unless you want to change stocks like some woman changes her shoes or purses, it doesn't matter. Do your homework and figure out what you want the rifle to accomplish. This will determine the stock you will be using. Then choose the proper receiver for your needs and be done with it. It's really that simple.

Well no its not. I have a very clear list of what I want to accomplish. I bought a receiver to fit that goal. Now I can't find a stock to fit the same basic requirements. Who buys a stock and then determines a receiver to fit to it. Thats just @ss backwards. I guess had I know to do thing backwards, I would have seen there was no stocked for what I wanted and so not bought a receiver.... or known I needed a custom stock from the start. Either way, I have never heard of buying a stock and then a receiver to fit. I bought the receiver to fit my goal and then found no wood stock to go with it.

No doubt about it, scopes do sit high on an M14. There are many stocks that resolve this issue, McMillan, JAE, SAGE, VLTOR, and others. If you want a traditional type stock, yes it will require a riser of some sort. This really shouldn't have come as some surprise. Rock solid, reliable scope mounts are available from at least 3 manufacturers I can think of.

I thought I did my homework here. Rather than dealing with Rock solid mounts, I bought a M25 with an integrated rail. Can't do better than that, can I? I knew I would need a riser and saw nice stocks like the Springfield M21 stock. However I did not know that all those stocks I was seeing were custom or for the double lug and are thick target stocks. I was really on the verge of figuring this all out about the time I had to order my receiver to get it in before the ban.

No "everyone" doesn't agree that a precision AR10 is going to automatically outshoot an accurized M14. ...

Well ok, lets say 95% agree, giving your opinion 5% of the weight! I don't have either, so I am just going off what I hear, as I said.

The bottom line is still this. The M14 lore thats out there is of a great rifle that is super accurate. With this came the assumption on my part that scoping it was obvious. Also that suppressors would be easy to add. Neither is true. The lengths you must go to to have an accurate gun are far and above. The cost involved is maybe double others. Its not as accurate as people think, especially not for the money and still only considering semi autos. Its not easy to modernize and keep the traditional look. That is belongs in the surplus rifle category with the M1 Garands and any other historical firearm. Not as a modern weapon platform. As long as you know that, you will be happy with your M14 as an expensive 308 Garand with a Magazine. Maybe my expectations were to high but considering all the M14 lore out there, I did not think I was asking so much...

 

[ericoak]

Mk11 > M14

 

[Erno86]

When the M14 was introduced for service in 1959, it was deemed to be the official replacement rifle for the BAR.

I like the looks of the new and improved Browning Automatic Rifle {BAR} --- 30 round magazine instead of the original 20 round mag --- from Ohio Ordnance Works, and would favor that rifle over the M14 by a country mile.