# M1a fiberglass vs walnut



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

I recently got a GI m14 fiberglass stock for my M1a nm, how much will I loose in accuracy from the wood stock? Been all over the net this afternoon and get 50/50 as to which is better. I love the look and feel of the walnut but wanted something to bang around the woods and shtf with. Just think the walnut is too pretty to mess up. If I go with GI stock should it be glass bedded also?


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

1skrewsloose said:


> I recently got a GI m14 fiberglass stock for my M1a nm, how much will I loose in accuracy from the wood stock? Been all over the net this afternoon and get 50/50 as to which is better. I love the look and feel of the walnut but wanted something to bang around the woods and shtf with. Just think the walnut is too pretty to mess up. If I go with GI stock should it be glass bedded also?


Psst, do not tell @rice paddy daddy :vs_no_no_no:


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

If I'm going to loose too much I'll resell the glass stock, my M1a is my favorite all-time long gun, for anything that needs doing. Cold as heck here or I'd take it to the range and compare notes.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> I recently got a GI m14 fiberglass stock for my M1a nm, how much will I loose in accuracy from the wood stock? Been all over the net this afternoon and get 50/50 as to which is better. I love the look and feel of the walnut but wanted something to bang around the woods and shtf with. Just think the walnut is too pretty to mess up. If I go with GI stock should it be glass bedded also?


The M14, being designed for combat and used in combat, was made for getting " banged around ".
The only reason the Fiberglas stock was introduced was to perhaps be better in a tropical jungle environment, Vietnam.
Mine wears a hardwood factory stock, can't really say it's genuine walnut. The upper hand guard is Fiberglas, like the originals.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Sounds the same as mine, I guess my question is being the nm is glass bedded from the factory what will I loose accuracy wise compared to glass stock. If minute of bg I'm going with the glass stock.
My eyes and steadiness are not what they once were so I'm not looking at sniper stuff.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

The heavy walnut stocks on the NM is really nice wood. They have real good bedding that helps accuracy. They recommend not separating them unless necessary. Take care of the stock with linseed or tung oil.

If you go fiberglass I'd get it bedded by a good smith, but keep the wood one.

Maybe @SOCOM42 will see this thread, he knows volumes about service rifles.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Re-read your post, so, as long as I'm not in a humid conditions the walnut will be fine. Guess I'll deal with the nicks and dings, think folks say it gives a rifle character.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

In the 30 years I've had the gun barrel and stock only been apart 3 times. The manual says same as you, only separate when necessary. Thanks. @madtrapper


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

1skrewsloose said:


> In the 30 years I've had the gun barrel and stock only been apart 3 times. The manual says same as you, only separate when necessary. Thanks. @madtrapper


Agree 1skrew!

Sometimes Less is More. A while back, I totally broke down my Winchester 94 to give it a good cleaning and of course it hadn't been apart since , I don't know... 1968 or so...of course I struggled to get it back tight as it was and just the other day I shot it and had to re-tighten everything. But it shoots good and straight and doesn't have 50 years of gunk on it!


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

1skrewsloose said:


> In the 30 years I've had the gun barrel and stock only been apart 3 times. The manual says same as you, only separate when necessary. Thanks. @madtrapper


30 years ago was when SAI was well stocked with USGI original parts. Did you get it new? Probably a Glen Nelson product.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Slippy said:


> Agree 1skrew!
> 
> Sometimes Less is More. A while back, I totally broke down my Winchester 94 to give it a good cleaning and of course it hadn't been apart since , I don't know... 1968 or so...of course I struggled to get it back tight as it was and just the other day I shot it and had to re-tighten everything. But it shoots good and straight and doesn't have 50 years of gunk on it!


Check your zero slippy. Those 94s with barrel bands can move around depending how tight the screws are. Same with the pre-64 M70s, but they had a screw in front of stock into the barrel, I saw one change ~2' at 100 yds.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

I bought it used in about 1988, in original box with manual, like a dumbass the box is gone but still have the papers, looked and still looks like new. I'll have to search glen nelson, new to me. Previous owner said he shot competition. Who knows for sure.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Mine is a Standard Model.
After each range trip I field strip it just like the Army taught me.
Trigger group, stock, barreled reciever, bolt, operating rod, gas system, all separate for cleaning.

I can remember in Basic after muddy field conditions we would take our M14's into the shower to get the mud out before stripping and cleaning.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Wow.....Mr. Nelson has quite a pedigree!!! I doubt I could be as lucky as to have a rifle his hands touched.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Anytime a Trashfield NM is removed from the bedding the accuracy is diminished.

So at this point, with three removals and no touching up of the bedding, you won't be loosing much using a glass stock.

You would have to be a master shooter to see the difference.

If it is a heavy barrel the most you could loose would be about 1 MOA, which would mean around a 2 MOA gun.

A real field grade M-14 is about 4 MOA, so you will be about twice as accurate, relatively speaking. 

Use the glass stock, doesn't make any difference now with the bedding already ruined.

Serious competition shooters do not take their rifles apart for the entire season.

When it is split for work they are then re-bedded for another year.

You do not need to bed the glass stock, a waste of money with no gain, it is not stiff enough to influence the barrel.

I have one I built, a field grade, on a Trashfield receiver in an unbedded USGI fiberglass stock, 

and it shoots about 1-1/2 MOA with M80 Ball.

That is one of my SHTF rifles, mounts a L&S scope on a Brookfield Precision mount.

The glass stock was developed for the jungles in Nam to combat rot.

I was a AMTU trained armorer for 10 years with a NG state rifle team.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

@rpd, leads me to believe that nm rifles were not intended for rough use, as per suggestion that they only be disassembled when required. Therefore maybe glass stock is the way to go, no chance to mess up the glass bedding on the original walnut stock.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> I bought it used in about 1988, in original box with manual, like a dumbass the box is gone but still have the papers, looked and still looks like new. I'll have to search glen nelson, new to me. Previous owner said he shot competition. Who knows for sure.


Glenn Nelson built match rifles for Trashfield.

He is no longer with us.

Over the decades I have re-barreled and rebuilt many of his builds used in competition.

Barrel life is around 5K.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> @rpd, leads me to believe that nm rifles were not intended for rough use, as per suggestion that they only be disassembled when required. Therefore maybe glass stock is the way to go, no chance to mess up the glass bedding on the original walnut stock.


Did you not read what I posted?????????????


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

1skrewsloose said:


> I bought it used in about 1988, in original box with manual, like a dumbass the box is gone but still have the papers, looked and still looks like new. I'll have to search glen nelson, new to me. Previous owner said he shot competition. Who knows for sure.


He was an military armorer who built match rifles before retiring and working for Springfield. Had his own shop that Springfield shipped parts to.

If you call Springfield they can look up serial # and tell when it was made. Also bolts and other parts will be marked if they are USGI ( H + R, Winchester, TRW, Springfield)

I'll defer to @SOCOM42 concerning working on guns.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

@SOCOM42, thank you so much, I had hoped you would respond. I will put the plastic on and be happy now. And save the pretty walnut for show and tell. Use the glass stock, doesn't make any difference now with the bedding already ruined. So once the action and barrel are separated it needs to be re-bedded? Just to clarify. Ta heck with that, I'll use as is. Thanks again.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Something must be out of whack with the timing of the posts, or I'm so slow at typing I didn't have a chance to read yours before I posted. Sorry! @SOCOM42 Stupid dog wants out all the time breaking my post up.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> @SOCOM42, thank you so much, I had hoped you would respond. I will put the plastic on and be happy now. And save the pretty walnut for show and tell. Use the glass stock, doesn't make any difference now with the bedding already ruined. So once the action and barrel are separated it needs to be re-bedded? Just to clarify. Ta heck with that, I'll use as is. Thanks again.


Yes, it needs what is called skimming, a partial re-bed, with the removal from the bedding,

small pieces even large break away, ruining accuracy.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Thanks for putting up with me.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> Thanks for putting up with me.


No problem.

I have in the past here spent an hour typing out something (hunt and peck) for someone.

That person never acknowledged the posting, thought it was in error.

Happened a couple more times, will not give that person the sweat off my ass ever again.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Thanks again, I spent the afternoon reading umteem posts on forums and threads and you answered what I wanted to know in 30 minutes, my hat is off to you!!!!
Actually post time was like 10 minutes. I should have come here first off.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

SNY stocks are strong and light. However the is something to having a heavier weapon. Weight helps with recoil often improving 2nd and third shots.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

@1skrewsloose, I forgot to mention one thing.

You will need to re-zero the rifle with the glass stock.

Should not be out more than 1 or two clicks, mostly elevation.

Mine (M-1's, M-14's) all have standard battle sight settings for MOM.

Any questions, ask.

I am an old snart, but with my M-25 I can still do head shots @ 600 yds.

There is a like button you can use for postings:tango_face_smile:


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Actually I do have a couple more questions. What's MOM, and why do you call them Trashfields? I can probably get a good guess on the trash field part but found many definitions for MOM.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

MOM = ‘minute of man’
The ability to hit a man (torso) as opposed to a smaller bullseye on a target.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Chiefster23 said:


> MOM = 'minute of man'
> The ability to hit a man (torso) as opposed to a smaller bullseye on a target.


 And this is what counts. It must be done quickly and repeatability.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> Actually I do have a couple more questions. What's MOM, and why do you call them Trashfields? I can probably get a good guess on the trash field part but found many definitions for MOM.


The guys are right on MOM.

Now this is why I call them Trashfield, some of many operations

done here in my shop to bring them closer to correct status.

I could go into details but it would take me forever to type it out.

They are more interested in profit than quality.

I have been reworking them since around 1978-1982 ???








correcting the take down notch so the oprod 
can be taken off without a hammer and screwdriver.








This one was for removing a rib leftover from the FA selector mount.
They only removed enough to be legal.
This caused a lot of problems on guns they built, 
and the hacking they did to get them together.

This was a brand new receiver, mods were done to this one about 10 years ago.
It was assembled as a field grade(combat) rifle with all USGI parts and barrel.
This one was done for a friend.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

@SOCOM42, I get your drift, hope there's nothing major that will affect reliability in the Trashfields. Would you say there was some years where they put out decent M1a's?


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> @SOCOM42, I get your drift, hope there's nothing major that will affect reliability in the Trashfields. Would you say there was some years where they put out decent M1a's?


The quality depended on a day to day basis, never knew what you got.

Today their quality is down due to the lack of USGI parts. JMHO.

I would only see ones that failed in some way, did not know the year of build or if they even did it.

Plus I did not care, my objective was to get it working right.

Receivers were bought and built into guns by a lot of smiths in the country.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

My Springfield is a 1992, and matching numbers against the charts that were on Different’s old site, most of them are USGI.
I’m happy with mine, I never had any intention of becoming a Camp Perry shooter.


----------

