trbon8r
Ultimate Member
I'd rather have a rifle that is .85 MOA versus .75 MOA and know it will work every time I pull the trigger. The numbers I just threw out are sort of from the hip but you get the point. An AR-10 is an accurate rifle but will never ever have the reliability of an M14.
I'd do an M14 with a rear lug receiver. Send the rifle to Derrick Martin at Accuracy Speaks. Get a front lug welded on and have the action bedded. Have them build it with a McMillan stock, Krieger barrel, unitized gas system, and Sadlak scope mount. You will be happy.
Forget the people that carp about the problems with bedding an M14. With a double lug receiver the modern bedding compounds used now will last the lifetime of the barrel.
Then again the choice is a little more obvious for me. About 15 years ago CMP was selling M14 parts for cheap and I stacked them deep. It's a little tougher now.
I'd do an M14 with a rear lug receiver. Send the rifle to Derrick Martin at Accuracy Speaks. Get a front lug welded on and have the action bedded. Have them build it with a McMillan stock, Krieger barrel, unitized gas system, and Sadlak scope mount. You will be happy.
Forget the people that carp about the problems with bedding an M14. With a double lug receiver the modern bedding compounds used now will last the lifetime of the barrel.
Then again the choice is a little more obvious for me. About 15 years ago CMP was selling M14 parts for cheap and I stacked them deep. It's a little tougher now.