Is an M1A Overkill for a New Shooter


PDA






oates
October 27, 2008, 11:13 AM
Have my first shooting lessons yesterday (with pistols) and would like to also become proficient with a decent rifle.

Is an M1A overkill for somebody who is new to shooting? I'm figuring that I would like my 1st by to be my main rifle that I will learn on and continue to shoot with forever.

Does somebody think a nice alternative would do?

I'm thinking of the M1A because you never know when there will be an act to make them illegal. I'd like to get one while I can.

Thanks for your thoughts.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is an M1A Overkill for a New Shooter" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
H2O MAN
October 27, 2008, 11:18 AM
Welcome!

oates

Is an M1A overkill for somebody who is new to shooting?

I lost my rifle shooting cherry to a Garand :evil:

I think the M14 type rifle is an excellent choice for any new shooter.
They have excellent iron sights and once you are familiar with the platform they are easy to shoot well.

oates
October 27, 2008, 11:22 AM
I guess I'm looking for a SHTF rifle. I see the poll says AR....Hmmmmm....

I just like the look of the M1A. I'll have to test one out.

Vermont
October 27, 2008, 12:12 PM
If you can afford plenty of ammo for it and are prepared for some recoil, there is no problem with it.

I went with .22lr for one reason only. The cost of ammo. For the price of 500 rounds of .308 I got 8,000 rounds of .22lr AND the rifle itself.

So...the bottom line for me is the price of ammo. Other than that it's up to you.

If you like the looks of the M1A, but want somewhat cheaper .223 ammo and the ability to carry more ammo in a SHTF situation, check out the Ruger mini-14. It's a .223 but looks more like an M1A than an AR.

pbhome71
October 27, 2008, 12:14 PM
I like the scout configuration. The "load" version is great, but is heavy that it should be, IMHO.

Avenger29
October 27, 2008, 12:15 PM
An M1A is a fine rifle.

However, you need to get a .22LR rifle. you will find that you can practice much more economically with a .22 rifle. A 10/22 with TechSIGHTS would serve as a makeshift trainer for your M1A...

The cost for a 10/22 so outfitted will be about $240 or so...new. Used 10/22s would be cheaper to outfit...

TexasRifleman
October 27, 2008, 12:23 PM
Is an M1A overkill for somebody who is new to shooting?

Nope. You might want to get some help however, a little training or someone that can mentor you starting off so that you don't hurt yourself or break something but it's a perfectly fine starting point for a shooter.

22lr
October 27, 2008, 12:23 PM
M1a1s are great guns. Im a AR guy myself but there's absolutely nothing wrong with a M1. I started with a 10/22 just because of ammo price but as long as you can afford to practice with a M1, go for it.

Justin
October 27, 2008, 12:24 PM
Run a cost comparison between .223 and .308 ammunition, and then figure that in order to get proficient with a rifle you'll have to burn through hundreds of rounds.

If the ammo cost doesn't make you flinch, go for it.

Jason_G
October 27, 2008, 12:27 PM
An M1A is a fine rifle.

However, you need to get a .22LR rifle. you will find that you can practice much more economically with a .22 rifle. A 10/22 with TechSIGHTS would serve as a makeshift trainer for your M1A...

The cost for a 10/22 so outfitted will be about $240 or so...new. Used 10/22s would be cheaper to outfit...

A big +1 to all of that.

The M1A is the most fun you can have with your clothes on... until you have buy ammo for it.

Get yourself a .22lr for practicing the fundamentals. Much cheaper to shoot, and therefore you will practice more. The fundamentals are the same for any caliber.

My 2% of a buck: Get the M1A if you have the money for it, but try to pick up a .22 somewhere also. They can usually be found at pawn shops for a modest sum.

Jason

Speedo66
October 27, 2008, 12:39 PM
US Army trained millions of first time users with it.

Kind of Blued
October 27, 2008, 12:50 PM
Despite an utter lack of logic, Ruger 10/22s are just as endangered as an M1A as far as bans go.

I'm a big advocate of the "develop skills with a .22" school. As mentioned above, you can learn a lot more by shooting 500 rounds of 22 than 20 rounds of .308.

I'd consider the semi-auto 22 mandatory, and a defensive rifle optional. If you ever REALLY need one, I'll loan you one of mine before the gestapo kicks down your door. ;)

oates
October 27, 2008, 12:53 PM
What about an old M1 from http://www.thecmp.org/?

Justin
October 27, 2008, 12:59 PM
US Army trained millions of first time users with it.

Which is easy to do when the taxpayers are footing the bill for instructors and ammunition.

TexasRifleman
October 27, 2008, 01:06 PM
I find it interesting the that the only argument AGAINST the M1A as a beginning rifle seems to be financial.

spuscg
October 27, 2008, 01:11 PM
umm no

IndianaBoy
October 27, 2008, 01:16 PM
I would venture that a bolt action 22 would be a better trainer for a first time shooter than a semi-auto. Reinforces making the shots count.

If you want a battle rifle now, an M1A would be fine as long as you have a patient mindset to learn to handle it, which I am confident you do based on your rational questions here. As others have mentioned ammo cost is a factor. An AR is a fine choice as well. Ignore all the 'craps where it eats' chatter about ARs being unreliable. I haven't experienced anything but reliability with AR15s. I bring up the AR in case the cost or recoil of 308 ammo makes you flinch.

Water-Man
October 27, 2008, 01:20 PM
oates... Forget all this crap about SHTF. If it did, owning a 'black rifle type' will make little difference to you. Get a quality .22LR and practice alot with it.

oates
October 27, 2008, 01:25 PM
Yeah...I guess the SHTF thing is pretty ridiculous.

Maybe I'll do the 22LR thing. I just thought it may be nice to start of with a one and only gun to have forever.

I didn't do too badly yesterday. 12 out of 50 outside the orange on a 25 yard target. The remaining were all in the orane.

IndianaBoy
October 27, 2008, 01:36 PM
There are lots of shopkeepers who used rifles to keep looters at a healthy distance during the LA riots who would disagree about SHTF being ridiculous. SHTF doesn't mean end of the world. A 22 is an indispensible part of any gun owners collection though. They are the MOST useful guns.

oates
October 27, 2008, 01:40 PM
Point well taken, IndianaBoy. I guess practicing with a 22 makes sense to get the motion/trigger/resetting aim makes sense.

I'm guessing that is recommended. I don't know why but I thought practicing with the gun you'll be using all the time to adapt to the kick would be the way to go.

I'll have to read up on practicing etc...Thanks to everybody for your take.

Water-Man
October 27, 2008, 01:43 PM
How many is alot of shopkeepers? Were they going through 20-30 round magazines? Did they do any better than if they were using lever-action rifles, mini-14 rifles, auto or pump shotguns? Get the facts!

dmazur
October 27, 2008, 01:51 PM
I got a Ciener conversion for a 1911 to save money on practice. I already had a .22 pistol, but this was supposed to allow practice with the same trigger feel (because it was the same frame...)

Well, it just isn't the same thing. If you're trying to develop proficiency with a particular firearm, you have to use it. Ammo costs are part of it.

So, (back to rifles) even though I practice with my Browning .22 semiauto, it isn't going to help me shoot my Garand any better, IMO. However, I feel it helps me with grouse hunting with the .22 ( :) )

I shoot the Garand to develop proficiency with that rifle.

TexasRifleman
October 27, 2008, 01:52 PM
How many is alot of shopkeepers? Were they going through 20-30 round magazines? Did they do any better than if they were using lever-action rifles, mini-14 rifles, auto or pump shotguns?

Forget all this crap about SHTF.

So your advice is to protect your life and property with a .22?

SHTF doesn't have to involve many people. If someone breaks into my home and attacks me, the S has most definitely Hit the Fan for me at that moment. Doesn't really matter what's going on down the street does it? In that case I'd certainly rather have an M1A that I'd practiced with than a .22 I'd practiced with.

H2O MAN
October 27, 2008, 02:16 PM
I don't care for the 10/22 trainer, it is nothing like the M14.

Sure, it's cheap to feed, but it's light, has no recoil, it has a single stage trigger, etc...

Would you take practice laps in a Pinto only to race in an Indy car?

Go with an M1A or an M14 and train with it.

oates
October 27, 2008, 03:25 PM
Is the Springfield standard sufficient?

Any other recommendations?

quatin
October 27, 2008, 03:34 PM
2 months down the line you'll end up buying another rifle. It's just how it goes, doesn't matter what you start with you'll have collection pretty soon.

H2O MAN
October 27, 2008, 03:36 PM
Is the Springfield standard sufficient?

Any other recommendations?

A Standard, Loaded or Scout would be sufficient.

Vermont
October 27, 2008, 03:38 PM
Would you take practice laps in a Pinto only to race in an Indy car?

Let's say you had never driven before and if you bought the Indy car you could only afford the gas to take five practice laps per year, but if you bought the Pinto, you could afford to take 100 practice laps per year, and after a year you could afford to buy the Indy car to practice in, having already mastered the basics.

I think that's a more apt analogy.

Sure, to master an M1A you have to shoot an M1A, but you first can master the basics of shooting for cheap and then adapt them slightly to the rifle you really want. Saving an extra $300 (the price of a 10/22 and a years supply of ammo) is not a big deal if your going to save up $2000 for the M1A and ammo.

Vermont
October 27, 2008, 03:44 PM
What about an old M1 from http://www.thecmp.org/?

I've heard the Garand is a fantastic rifle and I would love to own one someday. The surplus ammo from CMP is currently relatively cheap too.

I think you have to be a member of a CMP affilitated club to order.

Jason_G
October 27, 2008, 04:24 PM
I don't care for the 10/22 trainer, it is nothing like the M14.

Sure, it's cheap to feed, but it's light, has no recoil, it has a single stage trigger, etc...

Would you take practice laps in a Pinto only to race in an Indy car?

Go with an M1A or an M14 and train with it.

No offense, but that is asinine.
And if he's a new shooter with no instruction, it'll likely be a good way to develop a flinch. The fact that the 10/22 (or most any other .22 for that matter) is light, has no recoil, and has a single stage trigger makes it a good learning platform. Best to build good habits from the ground up. Bad habits are tough to break, and most are caused by the fact that new shooters tend to anticipate the recoil and/or noise. The .22 would be a much better learning platform.
Financially, the .22lr makes more sense as well. Shooting fundamentals are the same on any rifle, and they take trigger time to learn. For folks that are not made out of money, a .22lr makes boucoup more sense.

Get the M1A, but get a decent used .22 to learn the basics with.

Jason

H2O MAN
October 27, 2008, 05:03 PM
if he's a new shooter with no instruction

Good advice has been given by me and others that the OP to get instruction on how to shoot the M14 type rifle.

Anyone can be taught the basics and progress from there without ever touching a 22lr...

J32A2
October 27, 2008, 06:16 PM
You need a M1A scout squad!!!!!!

Justin
October 27, 2008, 06:25 PM
I find it interesting the that the only argument AGAINST the M1A as a beginning rifle seems to be financial.

There are plenty of valid arguments against the M1A for a first time rifle that aren't financial.

They need more maintenance than an AR15 if you intend to use them as a target rifle, they're nowhere near as modular, they certainly can't take multiple uppers.

The recoil impulse is heavier than a .223 and certainly more than a .22 LR.

However, unless you're lucky enough to have a parent who put you into smallbore rifle competition as a child, no one buys a .22 for their first gun.

Andrew Wyatt
October 27, 2008, 06:32 PM
H20man's bias is showing.

a ruger 10-22 with tech sights, five magazines and a thousand rounds of good ammo costs just over a third what a bone stock m-1a costs without ammo or additional magazines.

get the 10-22, first.


you can learn on an m-14, but it will be much more difficult. Much, much more difficult.

H2O MAN
October 27, 2008, 06:41 PM
Andrew Wyatt H20man's bias is showing.

Not in the least.

I had a sweet stainless 10/22 with the tech sights and ended up trading it for a case of
Portuguese 7.62 x 51 NATO surplus ammo because I realized I really didn't need the 22lr.

I then went on to build up two more M14s.

ifit
October 27, 2008, 07:07 PM
my rifles as i purchased them
1. bm m4 carbine
2. sa m1a
3. vz58 7.62x39
3. cz452 fs .22lr

first time at the range no instruction, pretty much learned on my own, but my very first shot gave me a smile like no other rifle i shot. let me help you consider one

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y211/kadiindo/m1a037.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y211/kadiindo/m1a034.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y211/kadiindo/m1a036.jpg

Andrew Wyatt
October 27, 2008, 07:16 PM
Not in the least.

I had a sweet stainless 10/22 with the tech sights and ended up trading it for a case of
Portuguese 7.62 x 51 NATO surplus ammo because I realized I really didn't need the 22lr.

I then went on to build up two more M14s.

I understand that you might not need the .22LR, but you're not buying a first gun. the OP is.

what was your first rifle? Mine was a remington 514, which i still have. I graduated to a mini-14, and then an Ar-15, an m-1a and then everything from enfields to hand built bolt guns. The reason i enjoy shooting today is my dad knew enough to start me out on something fun and easy to shoot.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for your chosen platform, but I don't think an m-1A is the answer here.

IndianaBoy
October 27, 2008, 07:25 PM
How many is alot of shopkeepers? Were they going through 20-30 round magazines? Did they do any better than if they were using lever-action rifles, mini-14 rifles, auto or pump shotguns? Get the facts!

I guess you didn't watch the news while it was going on in '92? There were enough of them that it was reported. One is enough, especially if that ONE happens to be you. The action type of the firearm is insignificant. Get the facts indeed!

Back to the original poster:

The Springfield rifles are 'good enough.' M14 fanatics are usually driven to find rifles made with USGI parts and receivers, or new Smith Enterprises receivers. A Springfield will suffice for the shooting that 95% of us will ever do. For a first rifle.. it will be excellent. I will say that you should get the full size model... not the shortened scout. I am not a M14/M1A expert, I know just enough to know that I don't have the discretionary cash to build a top shelf gun yet.

If I may ask... is spending between .50 and 1.00 per shot going to be prohibitive to you?

H2O MAN
October 27, 2008, 07:27 PM
Andrew Wyatt


what was your first rifle?

The very 1st rifle that I learned to shoot back in Indiana was the Garand.
The very first rifle that I purchased was a DAEWOO K1A1.
It took me a few decades to return to the .30 caliber rifle.

With proper training, the M14 is easily appropriate to any 1st time shooter.
Hell, I taught my girlfriend to shoot her very 1st hand gun... the Glock 21.

IndianaBoy
October 27, 2008, 07:28 PM
Here is a source for ammo, should you choose the M1A.

http://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8644

earplug
October 27, 2008, 07:35 PM
I was a ex Army, single guy with cash in my pocket, when I bought my M1A in 1978. I handloaded for it and it still was a pain for me to shoot. Finding a decent range, I don't like prone or sitting, the cost of magazines and the comparrisons with easy to shoot off the rack scoped hunting rifles that shot better. I sold the M1A and don't regret it. Lots of other rifles that are more bang for the buck. Accuracy, handyness and fun.

H2O MAN
October 27, 2008, 07:42 PM
IndianaBoy Here is a source for ammo, should you choose the M1A.

http://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8644

Excellent!

Aim Surplus has a bunch of German NATO surplus with the MEN head stamp (http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/German_.308_NATO_147grn_FMJ.html).
Selling for about $420.00 per 1000. I doubt it will ever be less expensive...


If only I purchased a truck load when Port was $135.00 per 1000 delivered :banghead:

oates
October 27, 2008, 07:58 PM
That is a pretty hefty price tag. I'll have to weigh the options.

Everybody's thoughts and opinions are greatly appreciated. This is a great board. Thank you!!

longdayjake
October 27, 2008, 10:24 PM
If I were you I would not hesitate to buy an m1a or an m1. Whether you start with one or not you will eventually want both. Just get them now and then worry about what you are going to learn on later. They may not always be as available as they are now. Keep in mind that the scout version cannot cycle or shoot the heavy 175 grain bullets. You will be limited to shooting 150 grainers accurately. The 168's don't shoot very well but they work.

longdayjake
October 27, 2008, 10:26 PM
Hell, I taught my girlfriend to shoot her very 1st hand gun... the Glock 21.

Was she professional enough?

H2O MAN
October 27, 2008, 10:31 PM
Quote:
Hell, I taught my girlfriend to shoot her very 1st hand gun... the Glock 21.
longdayjake

Was she professional enough?

Well, she didn't flinch and she hit what she aimed at. Professional enough for a 1st timer.

The funny thing is that she didn't like the AR I had here try out that same day...

MarcusWendt
October 27, 2008, 11:52 PM
No it's not overkill, in fact it's perfect. It's a classic rifle in a very common caliber and a great rifle. I couldn't think of a better platform to start on.

longdayjake
October 28, 2008, 12:23 AM
longdayjake

Was she professional enough?

Well, she didn't flinch and she hit what she aimed at. Professional enough for a 1st timer.

The funny thing is that she didn't like the AR I had here try out that same day...


It was meant to be an inside joke. You need to watch the video of the DEA Agent shooting himself and then you will get it. Do a youtube search for it.

oates
October 28, 2008, 08:11 AM
Now that I think about it - I think I was closing my eyes on some of the shots.

I need to get our for a 2nd round.

H2O MAN
October 28, 2008, 08:14 AM
video of the DEA Agent shooting himself

Yeah, I've seen it but I don't get your connection.

Candiru
October 28, 2008, 10:10 AM
You can learn to shoot well on a full-power firearm--nobody is denying this. However, you can get 90% of the experience for 10% of the money if you practice with a .22 LR. Toss some good dry-fire practice into the mix and you can improve your skill for pennies on the dollar.

My first rifle was a Springfield Armory, Inc. Loaded M1A. It was love at first kick, but I was a very poor shot with it, and the prospect of getting better at fifty cents per trigger pull was disheartening. I acquired a 10/22 and installed some Tech Sights (http://www.tech-sights.com/) and tossed a cheap USGI web sling (http://cdnninvestments.com/m1greenwebne.html) on it. I reduced some targets on my computer and shoot at them from 25 yards with the 10/22. What's funny is that I only shoot a little more ammo out of the 10/22 than would be used with the M1A because I spend the same amount of time lining up shots, getting the breathing right, etc. It's a lot cheaper, though.

As has been mentioned, a 10/22, even one outfitted in this fashion, is still not an M1A. That's where dry-fire practice comes in. I reduced some targets even further on my computer so they appear to be the right size when taped to the "safe direction" wall of my family room. I practice shooting positions, trigger pull, and cheekweld with the full-sized rifle on a nice warm carpet, and all I have to worry about is a little friendly mockery from the wife.

As a result of these techniques, my riflery skills have gone from absymal to merely mediocre in less than 400 rounds of actual .308 ammo. I've seen improvements with every range trip, which has really enhanced my enjoyment of the rifle. Like I said earlier, you can do just fine without a .22, but boy does it help.

oates
October 28, 2008, 12:47 PM
One last question before I ride off into the sunset -

Will firing lefty be a problem with the M1A? I am right handed but have swung a bat and everything else lefty. Lefty is actually where I would feel comfortable with a rifle.

longdayjake
October 28, 2008, 12:52 PM
video of the DEA Agent shooting himself

Yeah, I've seen it but I don't get your connection.

Well in the video he shoots himself with the g22 right after he says "I'm the only one in this room professional enough."

I know the 21 and the 22 are different calibers but I was just trying to make a dumb joke.


FAIL

Water-Man
October 28, 2008, 01:09 PM
IndianaBoy...Your comment is insignificant. You watching the news program sixteen years ago means nothing. Answer the questions I asked, if you can, or drop it.

IndianaBoy
October 28, 2008, 03:51 PM
Waterman you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I stated a significant example of a SHTF scenario in America, as a rebuttal to your assertion that he forget about that concern. Nowhere did I state that one weapon was superior to another for that purpose. I actually suggested that oates acquire a bolt action 22 for training. If you would like a comprehensive list of specific firearms used in a time when the police fled and a minority (the koreans) were left with only their best defenses... Well keep hoping. Common sense and a little perspective bear out everything I am saying. If the comments are insignificant to you is no concern to me. Some of us in this thread are making an active attempt to provide oates with honest information.

There is nothing wrong with responsible people preparing for bad situations. A rimfire would be a sorry substitute for an M1A for a man stuck on a rooftop surrounded by rioters.

JR47
October 28, 2008, 04:14 PM
Any knowledgeable range or club will have someone that can instruct on a rifle or hand-gun, for the asking. The idea that someone needs a .22 to start with is just not true. You can learn the basics with virtually any rifle.

I learned to shoot centerfire with an M1 Garand, courtesy of the Navy in 1965. Prior to that, I'd been shooting rim-fire rifles, but not nearly as much as I'd have liked to. I graduated from that to the M14 rifle, and then learned to shoot the 1911A1, again courtesy of the Navy.

I didn't even OWN a .22 rifle until leaving the military. Yes, they're fun, and yes, ammo is cheap. However, the idea of defending yourself with one is regularly derided on this Site. Some of the posters who do that are posting here now.

The M1A, or M14, needs nothing near the maintenance of the AR platform until you reach Master, or Grandmaster levels. The design is rugged, accurate, and dependable. Magazines are running $20.00 today. The 7.62x51 cartridge is legal to hunt game with, and that's something that the .223 can't say in the majority of states. The cartridge is also capable of turning AR type cover, into concealment.

The Korean shopkeepers in L.A. during the Rodney King temper tantrums did, indeed, defend their shops against rioters and looters. None of those filmed used a .22 lr anything to do so. How many? Several dozens of them, all over the rioting areas.

SHTF isn't, as was brought up, a nation-wide condition. Many times it's very local. The riots in NYC in 1965, when the power went out, was only in a couple of Boroughs. The LA riots of 1992 weren't even city-wide. The Miami riots were only in a single section of Miami. The members of the community defending their property in the wake of Florida's hurricane were only near the phenomena, as were those in New Orleans for Katrina.

The .22 lr is sufficient to forage with. It's advantage in weight of ammunition is one of gathering food, not defending against large predators, or people. If it's all that you have, it beats a tooth-pick.

H2O MAN
October 28, 2008, 04:26 PM
JR47, well said sir!

IndianaBoy
October 28, 2008, 04:27 PM
I did a little more reading, it appears the sks was the weapon of choice among the koreans in LA.

Oates, that being said: an sks and a case or two of ammunition can be had for the cost of an m1a. It won't be as powerful or accurate, but they are functional guns.

Andrew Wyatt
October 28, 2008, 05:07 PM
i'm not saying that you can't get a centerfire rifle in addition to the 10-22.

you can get a 10-22 and an SKS and tech sights for each for the price of an m-1A.

Jason_G
October 28, 2008, 06:10 PM
Any knowledgeable range or club will have someone that can instruct on a rifle or hand-gun, for the asking. The idea that someone needs a .22 to start with is just not true. You can learn the basics with virtually any rifle.

I learned to shoot centerfire with an M1 Garand, courtesy of the Navy in 1965. Prior to that, I'd been shooting rim-fire rifles, but not nearly as much as I'd have liked to. I graduated from that to the M14 rifle, and then learned to shoot the 1911A1, again courtesy of the Navy.

The Navy isn't going to be buying his ammo.
I don't think anyone here is saying that you can't learn on an M1A, just that it's cheaper and more efficient to practice on a .22. Like I've said twice already, get the M1A AND a .22.

Jason

MTMilitiaman
October 28, 2008, 07:15 PM
I can understand the appeal of starting a young child or small statured adult on a .22. I learned on a Winchester M63, but I was four-years old. Most adults should be fine with any centerfire rifle in the .308 class. My step-mom shot my M1A her first time out shooting a rifle and did okay with it, even if she preferred the Mini-14. I can't imagine an adult male be intimidated by the M1A. That is definitely grounds for revoking of Man Card. We're talking about a ten-pound, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle here. From a 6.5 pound bolt action with a steel buttplate, the .308 isn't bad. From an M1A, it's a pussy cat.

While the M1A is more difficult to field strip for maintenance, to suggest that it requires more maintenance than the AR is bull-pucky. Nothing could be further from the truth. With the exception of certain Russian designs and possibly the FAL, the M1A requires less maintenance than just about any other semi-automatic rifle system available. The M1A's receiver remains cool and clean through hundreds of rounds and requires only infrequent maintenance consisting of a quick scrubbing with a toothbrush and a wipe down with a clean rag. It's more accessible than the AR receiver, so even disregarding how much dirty the AR's receiver is likely to be, this process is much quicker and more trouble free with the M1A. The bolt, like the receiver, has fewer tight spaces and edges to clean, including far fewer lugs. For regular maintenance, the user really only has to pull the cable of his Otis cleaning kit or a Bore Snake through the bore as desired, and disassemble the gas system every couple hundred rounds or so. Unless one has subjected their rifle to a sand pit or mud bog, or other adverse condition not likely found under normal range use, one could easily go a long time without ever even taking their M1A out of its stock.

As for the Springfield rifles, I was skeptical as well when I bought my M1A. All the talk of cast receivers had me thinking. Receiving the rifle and taking it to the range quelled my fears. The Springfield M1A is an excellent rifle. Be advised, however, that M1As are addictive, and having bought your first, you'll quickly begin thinking about your next. Which, with the pros out of the way, brings me to the cons:

1. The M1A offers a shooting experience matched by no other design. It is about as accurate, reliable, trouble-free, and durable as it is possible for a rifle to be. The sights and trigger are among the best ever put on a battle rifle. The ergonomics and balance are excellent. But the experience is more than the sum of its parts. Popping your rifle cherry to an M1A is like losing your virginity to ______insert favor porn star here_______. It just ruins the experience with everything else.

2. Because the experience is so rewarding, M1As are addictive. An 18 inch Scout could easily to everything you could ask of a rifle out to at least 600 yards, but that won't matter. You'll find increasingly smaller M1A niches that need to be filled. I have a full-size Loaded, but I had no sooner wafted the smoke from the handguards my first time out with it than I started thinking about an 18 inch Scout in a Sage, a Super Match in a JAE Gen II, a Chinese Polytech under the seat in the truck, a SOCOM 16 next to the bedstand... ...

3. Ammo, like everything else nowdays, is expensive. While I won't claim this is a good thing, good can come of it. You'll focus on the fundamentals and make every shot count. At $.40 a pop, you'll do less bump-firing and random noise-making, and more real, honest, practice.

One last question before I ride off into the sunset -

Will firing lefty be a problem with the M1A? I am right handed but have swung a bat and everything else lefty. Lefty is actually where I would feel comfortable with a rifle.

I am cross-eye dominant--that is, right-handed but left-eye dominant. I shoot left-handed because of this.

I have never had a semi-automatic rifle give me problems shooting it left-handed. I have never, not once, had a case ejected back at me or anything like that. The only time this has occurred has been after the empty has ricocheted off cover on my right, and this can occur to any design and to right-handed shooters as well.

For a lefty, the M1A is an excellent choice. Springfield advises that left-handed shooters attempt to shoot the rifle right-handed, but I have not found this to be necessary, and in fact, the design seems to favor left-handed shooters. The safety and mag release are ambi and easily accessible to both right-handed and left-handed shooters. But the location of the charging handle on the right side of the rifle requires right-handed shooters to either move their firing hand from the firing position or move their support hand over or under the receiver, which can be difficult and comparatively time consuming, esp with optics and a twenty-round magazine in place. This is the same problem faced by right-handed shooters with the Kalashnikov, and it is one that you as a lefty don't have, with either design.

The AR is fine for lefties and you can cope with practice, but for left-handed shooters, it is ergonomically far inferior to the M1A/M14.

On the M1A, cases are ejected slightly upwards at about the 2 o' clock position, in my experience, well away from the shooter. Rest easy and ride thee into the sunset...

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l308/MTMilitiaman/Guns/M1Aleaves.jpg

killzone
October 28, 2008, 08:46 PM
Possible, since the felt recoil is a major factor with M1 type rifles.
I guess the question is, do you really want to spend the big money on a "first rifle" and maybe regret it for many other possible reasons.

Try the good ol Ruger mini 14 and see how you like it.

H2O MAN
October 28, 2008, 08:51 PM
Any felt recoil generated by the M14 is easily tamed... VIDEO (http://www.smithenterprise.com/spec/SEI_M14_USCG_MB-1.mpg)

http://www.athenswater.com/images/SEI_M21A5C_IED-a.jpg

Gunfighter123
October 28, 2008, 09:01 PM
Get the M1A and get a .22 !!!! Problem is --which M1A ??? Guess if one is good -- then two are better:D
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b199/Jailbird123/DSC00871.jpg

JR47
October 28, 2008, 09:22 PM
The Navy isn't going to be buying his ammo.

Just can't let it go, can you? The cost of .22 lr is now approaching $5.00/50 of anything BUT bulk ammo. Bulk ammo is neither as reliable, nor accurate, as the lower tier standards.

The .308 FMj can be had for $9.00/20 here http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/308_Ammunition.html

Prices are coming down, and, when the current war cools off, they will soon be down to the $5.00/20 range, as they were after Vietnam, and Gulf War I.

Learning to shoot an M1A is certainly no more expensive than learning to shoot a deer rifle.

I own a TRW M14, a Class 3 M1A1 (SAI nomenclature on the box), and an M1A loaded. Most new shooters can get along quite nicely with 100 rounds per outting to learn with. After two trips, they will have the fundamentals down. Heck, they can go to an Appleseed shoot, and learn from experts.

The Koreans had a mix of guns. The SKS wasn't overly represented. Remember, they were in California, a state that severely restricts choices. Look at the abomination that they've made of the AR platform there.

Choose what you want. The M1A is a fine beginners weapon. It will do everything that you need. If you want a .22, good enough. Get one. The M1A will do more, that's all.

Jason_G
October 29, 2008, 09:42 PM
Just can't let it go, can you? The cost of .22 lr is now approaching $5.00/50 of anything BUT bulk ammo. Bulk ammo is neither as reliable, nor accurate, as the lower tier standards.

I fail to see how you can't recognize that .22lr is quite a bit cheaper than .308. And the $9.00 stuff you pointed out is steel-cased Barnaul :barf:. I also highly doubt we'll ever see $5.00/20 rnds for decent .308 ammo again.


Learning to shoot an M1A is certainly no more expensive than learning to shoot a deer rifle.
I guarantee you if you ask, an overwhelming majority of hunters will tell you how they learned on a .22.

Most new shooters can get along quite nicely with 100 rounds per outting to learn with. After two trips, they will have the fundamentals down.
For decent ammo (not crappy Barnaul or Wolf, but not Federal GMM either), you will spend about $20 per box of 20 rnds. So your trip of 100 rounds will cost about $100 if you want to do anything more than make noise and a bunch of carbon in your gas cylinder.

The same trip with a .22 would cost about $10, if that.

I own an M1A, and they are a whole lot of fun. I am not saying "don't get one," and I'm not even saying one can't learn on it, just that it is more cost efficient to learn on a .22.

Jason

H2O MAN
October 29, 2008, 09:48 PM
:banghead:

JR47
October 30, 2008, 09:55 AM
I fail to see how you can't recognize that .22lr is quite a bit cheaper than .308. And the $9.00 stuff you pointed out is steel-cased Barnaul . I also highly doubt we'll ever see $5.00/20 rnds for decent .308 ammo again.

Did you even look at the link? Try using a calculator function to check out the German 147 gr. FMJBT @ $209.99/500 rounds. That would be 25 boxes. Mathematics is your friend.

I never said that .22 lr wasn't cheaper than .308. I simply pointed out that there is reasonably priced .308 available. What you doubt has already happened twice, so, let's just agree that , in your opinion, it won't happen a THIRD time.

I guarantee you if you ask, an overwhelming majority of hunters will tell you how they learned on a .22.

Not the OP's question, is it? I would also ask how many of the hunter's who learned to hunt as an adult bought a .22 FIRST? That's not going to be an overwhelming majority.

For decent ammo (not crappy Barnaul or Wolf, but not Federal GMM either), you will spend about $20 per box of 20 rnds. So your trip of 100 rounds will cost about $100 if you want to do anything more than make noise and a bunch of carbon in your gas cylinder.

Gosh, isn't math wonderful? I'm guessing that you'll be retracting this now, right? The German ammo is readily available in many stores, and gun shows, as well as on-line. I use neither Wolf, nor Barnaul in my M1A. Instead, I use the surplus that I stock-piled over the years, or the latest German surplus. In fact, when I teach a new-comer to the M1A platform, I usually allow them to buy ammo from me, of known provenance and accuracy, if they don't have decent ammo. :)

Vermont
October 30, 2008, 10:45 AM
This argument is getting old.

Everyone seems to agree that you can learn on an M1A. That is not in question.

OP, you just have to ask yourself what you can afford. If you can afford the M1A and plenty of ammo, go and get it. It is a great rifle.


Let's assume you will learn the basics on 500 rounds. You can go two routes
1)You can buy 500 rounds of .308. That will cost you about $250
2) Or you could purchase a .22 rifle and 500 rounds of ammo for $200 total and learn the basics. Then you can buy the M1A and spend that extra $50 on ammo to get used to the recoil.

Either way you end up in the same place with regards to your M1A, but if you go the second route you end up with an extra rifle for cheap plinking.


I have a tendency to be really enthusiastic about stuff for a while and then lose interest. If this happens to you, I would definitely buy the .22 first.

In the end, do what you want. As long as you wallet is fat enough, you can't go wrong here.

SSN Vet
October 30, 2008, 10:53 AM
Personally, I'm not conviced that a M1A is either required, OR desired for your run of the mill SHTF puposes.

Don't get me wrong, I'd give my left nut to have one and would enjoy re-loading for it as well.

Just don't think it's the best option for stated task.

Intermediate rifle cartridges became predominate ages ago. And though there's need for long legs and penetrating power in every rifle company, we're not really talking about standing up rifle companies here, are we?

H2O MAN
October 30, 2008, 10:59 AM
That's why the 18.0" version shines so brightly :evil:

jacobhh
October 30, 2008, 11:14 AM
an sks and a case or two of ammunition can be had for the cost of an m1a

IMHO the M1A is worth every dollar of the difference.

If you want to own and shoot a .30 cal gas gun, buy one. The handling,
operation, maintenance and recoil are totally different from that of a
10/22. If you're going to flinch due to recoil a thousand .22 rounds
aren't going to teach that away.

If you can afford a $1500+ rifle, you can afford the surplus ammo for
it. There are plenty of sources for 7.62x51 at a reasonable price. The
Garand is a good choice also.

Why would a person who wants to shoot an M14 type rifle waste time
and money on a .22 then buy the rifle they want? You can get accostomed
to the hold, trigger squeeze and aim at home, then get real at the range.

jacobhh
October 30, 2008, 11:19 AM
an sks and a case or two of ammunition can be had for the cost of an m1a

IMHO the M1A is worth every dollar of the difference.

If you want to own and shoot a .30 cal gas gun, buy one. The handling,
operation, maintenance and recoil are totally different from that of a
10/22. If you're going to flinch due to recoil a thousand .22 rounds
aren't going to teach that away.

If you can afford a $1500+ rifle, you can afford the surplus ammo for
it. There are plenty of sources for 7.62x51 at a reasonable price. The
Garand is a good choice also.

Why would a person who wants to shoot an M14 type rifle waste time
and money on a .22 then buy the rifle they want? You can get accostomed
to the hold, trigger squeeze and aim at home, then get real at the range.

Andrew Wyatt
October 30, 2008, 12:07 PM
With a .22 you can do way more shooting in a day without becoming tired than you can with an m-1A, and you can do it at any range facility. it has lower recoil, so you can learn the fundamentals more quickly and more easily. you can pass it down to your kid for his first gun. you can take small game with it quietly and without spoiling a lot of meat.


I'm not saying that he can't own an m-1a, i'm just saying that it's not the best gun for a beginner, becaue it has recoil, ammunition is expensive, and it requires that you know stuff to do basic things like sight it in.

I really do like the m-1A. seriously.

but i think the OP would be better served by spending the 1500 dollars on a 10-22 with Tech Sights, a Glock 19, and an SKS with tech sights. more guns.

Jason M
October 30, 2008, 12:14 PM
I think so. Only because they are over-priced and over-rated. An AR-10 will cost you less for a basic rifle. A "basic" M1A will set you back $1500 at least; probably closer to $1700.

Is it overkill caliber-wise? No. I see no reason why .308 is too much to start with.

Justin
October 30, 2008, 12:41 PM
Why would a person who wants to shoot an M14 type rifle waste time
and money on a .22 then buy the rifle they want? You can get accostomed
to the hold, trigger squeeze and aim at home, then get real at the range.

Dry-firing can only get you so far.

Look, I'm not generally into name-dropping, but when someone like Matt Burkett tells me point-blank that to get good at running a rifle you should buy a .22, a handful of steel poppers, and all the bulk packs of ammo you can afford, and then continues to tick off a list of reasons why training with a .22 will improve your center fire rifle game, I'm generally going to listen.

Perhaps it all boils down to how often you plan to shoot. Frankly, I couldn't afford to burn through even half of the amount of .223 I'd like to. As such, a gun in .22 LR, whether it's a 10/22 or a Tactical Solutions .22 upper for an AR is a fantastic training solution that will allow you to burn literally thousands of rounds at much less than half the cost of any sort of decent ammo.

Frankly, I just don't grasp why you'd dump $1500 on a rifle, and then fall back to shooting the cheapest surplus crap ammo you can find. It completely defeats the purpose of purchasing a precision rifle in the first place.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
October 30, 2008, 01:02 PM
Like everyone said, no not overkill -go for it. But also snag a $90 gun show .22 to go with, and practice with cheap ammo. Everyone needs a .22 rifle. After a shotgun, it is the 2nd firearm every gun owner ought to have, IMO.

Frandy
October 30, 2008, 01:14 PM
I guess I'm looking for a SHTF rifle. I see the poll says AR....Hmmmmm....

I just like the look of the M1A. I'll have to test one out.

Well, an M1A an AR-style rifles are quite different animals. I first shot an Springfield 03-A3 rifle many years ago and graduated to a Garand. In the service I was given the M16 and thought the recoil was a joke after shooting the .30 caliber. I still own and shoot a Garand and have owned but sold two ARs. Just my style.

But, if you are knee-shaking over a SHTF scenario, I must admit that if I were in one place, my Garand would serve me well, but if I were forced to be on the move, I'd carry my M-1 Carbine and a .22 rifle (that breaks down). The Garand and M1A are larger and less maneuverable. Many here are going to tell you to go with the AR platform for SHTF if you go beyond a .22 rimfire.

A lot to consider. For my current situation, if I were in the market, I'd get the M1A.

H2O MAN
October 30, 2008, 02:00 PM
The AR-10 is over-priced and over-rated, stick with the M14/M1A.

JR47
October 30, 2008, 02:01 PM
Frankly, I just don't grasp why you'd dump $1500 on a rifle, and then fall back to shooting the cheapest surplus crap ammo you can find. It completely defeats the purpose of purchasing a precision rifle in the first place.

For the same reason that many people were shooting surplus .223 until it became scarce. The standard , or loaded, M1A does just fine with NATO quality ammo, surplus or new. Unless you're buying a Match, or Supermatch, the rifle will happily digest this, and any other commercial ammo with even reasonably close pressure curves.

The whole point of this exercise is that many people come to the sport able to purchase one, multi-purpose, gun. The question was:

Is an M1A overkill for somebody who is new to shooting? I'm figuring that I would like my 1st by to be my main rifle that I will learn on and continue to shoot with forever.

Does that sound like a man looking to build up a collection of rifles, for any reason? There is NO hard and fast rule in play here. Perhaps if we try listening to what was asked, before hitching up the High Horse, and lecturing, we might actually have more people in the sport.

MTMilitiaman
October 30, 2008, 03:48 PM
Intermediate rifle cartridges became predominate ages ago. And though there's need for long legs and penetrating power in every rifle company, we're not really talking about standing up rifle companies here, are we?

Yep. You answered your own question. Intermediate caliber rifles became predominant because our current military doctrine allows us to use it effectively. Doing this requires resources that are not available to the civilian. The average civilian is not going to be patrolling street attempting to "locate, close with, and destroy" a determined enemy. They are going to have the manpower required to suppress an enemy position once contact is made, nor the firepower to accomplish the feat even if they do. And unlike the military, the civilian isn't going to have M240s, M2s, Mk 19s, and Cobra gunships behind him when the power of the 5.56 leaves him wanting. This means the biggest advantages of the 5.56 as a military cartridge aren't available, or are completely irrelevant to the civilian. The civilian doesn't have to care about ammo weight. Ammo weight is nearly completely irrelevant as the civilian can stockpile thousands of rounds and post up next to it with a rifle. Any contact made during movement isn't going to involve a protracted gun battle, and any gun battles made aren't going to involve suppressive fire, as unlike the military, the civilian must account for every round he fires. And again, the chances of a civilian having squad level forces with the training and physical and mental stamina to fire and maneuver, are virtually non-existent. Furthermore, anything the civilian encounters he will have to take care of himself as he can not call for heavier fire from elsewhere. In truth, the needs of the civilian are much more like a police sniper than a Marine Corp infantryman. The infantryman can expend thousands of rounds to accomplish a single enemy casualty and is generally not going to be held to the standards of legal responsibility for every errant round that a civilian is going to be held to because it is acknowledged collateral damage occurs during war. Save for a total collapse of government, the civilian is eventually going to have to account for every round he fires. He needs to accomplish the greatest effect with the least amount of expended rounds. This means aimed rifle fire, and when everything is accounted for, it means the 7.62x51 is head and shoulders above the 5.56x45 as a civilian defensive round.

So you're right. We're not talking about a rifle company. We're not even talking about a rifle squad. We are talking about a single individual to maybe a small handful of civilians who's needs are drastically different from the military. And this is exactly why a 7.62 MBR like the M1A makes so much sense. Because no greater amount of individual firepower is available on the civilian market.

lencac
October 30, 2008, 05:22 PM
An M1A is an awesome choice. You will love it and it will last a lifetime. And when you get old and crotchety you can pass it down to your kid.

Jason_G
October 30, 2008, 06:59 PM
Did you even look at the link? Try using a calculator function to check out the German 147 gr. FMJBT @ $209.99/500 rounds. That would be 25 boxes. Mathematics is your friend.
Yep. I looked at your link. And before you get all snippy, I would like to point out that there were several different items on that page, of which you specified none in your earlier post. You posted this snide remark: Just can't let it go, can you? The cost of .22 lr is now approaching $5.00/50 of anything BUT bulk ammo. Bulk ammo is neither as reliable, nor accurate, as the lower tier standards.

The .308 FMj can be had for $9.00/20 here http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_s...mmunition.html


and since the only box of 20 rounds that cost $9.00 was steel cased, one would only assume that was what you were talking about. To expect one to deduce that you were talking about one specific item on a page of many, and one that you would have to calculate the price per 20 for, is a bit silly. So keep your "math is your friend" comment to yourself please.

Me: I also highly doubt we'll ever see $5.00/20 rnds for decent .308 ammo again.
What you doubt has already happened twice, so, let's just agree that , in your opinion, it won't happen a THIRD time.

Yes, and just for example, gas used to fluctuate around $1.00 a gallon, too. I'm not expecting to see it come back anytime soon though. If we see even a modest amount of good surplus ammo come down to $5/20 rnds, I will gladly eat crow.


Me:
I guarantee you if you ask, an overwhelming majority of hunters will tell you how they learned on a .22.
Not the OP's question, is it? I would also ask how many of the hunter's who learned to hunt as an adult bought a .22 FIRST? That's not going to be an overwhelming majority.

You are the one that brought it up: Learning to shoot an M1A is certainly no more expensive than learning to shoot a deer rifle.


Me:For decent ammo (not crappy Barnaul or Wolf, but not Federal GMM either), you will spend about $20 per box of 20 rnds. So your trip of 100 rounds will cost about $100 if you want to do anything more than make noise and a bunch of carbon in your gas cylinder.
Gosh, isn't math wonderful? I'm guessing that you'll be retracting this now, right? The German ammo is readily available in many stores, and gun shows, as well as on-line.

No, I don't think it needs retracting. Reliable surplus ammo is not something that is available in most stores. For most folks it is an "order online" item, and may cost extra $$ to have shipped to their state. Also, most folks cannot afford to buy in bulk to get the cheaper cost per round and will end up paying almost as much for surplus as commercial ammo, especially if it entails shipping charges.

The whole point of my post was to point out that the M14 is a great rifle, but that it is cheaper to learn on a .22. If you can manage to find a way to shoot a .308 cheaper than a .22, let me know, because I would love to shoot my M1A for the price of shooting my .22's.

For future reference, if you want to have a friendly discussion about anything else, that's fine with me, but I'd appreciate it if you keep the snide remarks to yourself, unless you'd rather pm me.

Thanks.

Jason

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
October 30, 2008, 07:12 PM
The AR-10 is over-priced and over-rated, stick with the M14/M1A.

Well now if THAT is not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is! :neener: :)

amprecon
October 30, 2008, 10:06 PM
Get the M1A, you'll never need anything else.

rtn
October 30, 2008, 11:19 PM
M1As are great. I have one, and love to shoot it. And I think they're fine as a first rifle.

I also have and love to shoot a .30-06 Remington 700 bolt action. Bolts are mechanically simple and can be be very accurate. Frankly, if the SHTF, I'd take my Glock 19 and .30-06 and be just fine.

lencac
October 31, 2008, 01:20 PM
Now hold on here folks. What the heck were we talking about again. I forgot in all the excitement. Was it M's, 22's, LR's, pots, kettles, 3-0 somethings. It's just all so confusing for me :banghead:

JR47
October 31, 2008, 03:11 PM
Yep. I looked at your link. And before you get all snippy, I would like to point out that there were several different items on that page, of which you specified none in your earlier post. You posted this snide remark:

None of which were specified. So, why pick the cheapest quality round, and decide that was what I intended to use? Oh, and you really didn't look at the ad, as Wolf was $7.99 That requires NO math.

and since the only box of 20 rounds that cost $9.00 was steel cased, one would only assume that was what you were talking about. To expect one to deduce that you were talking about one specific item on a page of many, and one that you would have to calculate the price per 20 for, is a bit silly. So keep your "math is your friend" comment to yourself please.

Why would you assume that? To expect one to deduce that there were multi-price cases on that page, ALL of which offer a discount over the box price, isn't very much of a challenge. If we can't see that, don't go frocery shopping.

Yes, and just for example, gas used to fluctuate around $1.00 a gallon, too. I'm not expecting to see it come back anytime soon though. If we see even a modest amount of good surplus ammo come down to $5/20 rnds, I will gladly eat crow.

Gas at a dollar a gallon is gone. The OPEC cartel is adjusting the output of oil to maintain $60.00 a barrel. It's outside forces that artificially manipulate the market. The argument is specious. Ammunition will be a goodly bit cheaper as the various militaries surplus out war-stocks over the decade following the cool-down of the Middle East.

No, I don't think it needs retracting. Reliable surplus ammo is not something that is available in most stores. For most folks it is an "order online" item, and may cost extra $$ to have shipped to their state. Also, most folks cannot afford to buy in bulk to get the cheaper cost per round and will end up paying almost as much for surplus as commercial ammo, especially if it entails shipping charges.

Try again. Surplus ammunition is widely available at gun shops, gun shows, as well as on-line. While there may be shipping charges, there is no sales tax, so, in many areas, it's a wash. The person who is spending money on ANY firearm is going to be able to afford more than a box of ammo at a time. Sorry, that just won't fly.

For future reference, if you want to have a friendly discussion about anything else, that's fine with me, but I'd appreciate it if you keep the snide remarks to yourself, unless you'd rather pm me.

[QUOTE]I fail to see how you can't recognize that .22lr is quite a bit cheaper than .308. And the $9.00 stuff you pointed out is steel-cased Barnaul . I also highly doubt we'll ever see $5.00/20 rnds for decent .308 ammo again./QUOTE]

Then let's try not to assume that you know more than anyone else. Your response was condescending, and taking umbrage at your own failure being pointed out is insignificant, sir. I will admit that I expected anyone familiar with pricing bulk items to pick up on the differences, so I'll apologize for having an elevated expectation of normalcy.

There's also no need to describe anything as crappy, or other negative attributes, especially when one is in error. I would also have expected one to actually quote the price of the "crappy" item correctly.

I would suggest that a PM, from YOU, instead of blithely assuming that you were correct, and even then making the wrong price quote, would have avoided all of this. I would have been more than willing to correct your assumptions, without "snide remarks".

Don't forget to vote this Tuesday, though.:)

Jason_G
October 31, 2008, 06:45 PM
I won't let you drag me into the mud with such an asinine argument, but I did not misquote any prices.

You said "$9.00 per 20 rounds." That to most folks would insinuate that you meant per box of 20. The only boxes of 20 on the page that I saw that were $9.00 was Brown Bear (which is the Barnaul I was referring to), which was $8.99/20. I understand that you meant bulk surplus, but there was no way to tell that from your post. You made no mention of what brand or make in your earlier post.

That's about all I have left to say to you, as I believe I've already made my point crystal clear.

Jason

SoCalShooter
October 31, 2008, 09:21 PM
Welcome, the m1a is a great choice it definitely will learn you a thing or two about shooting a mans rifle but you could get an AR 15 and be ALMOST as happy.

JR47
November 1, 2008, 10:23 AM
Jason G

Like you, I don't try to read minds. I see that you've actually looked at the linked page now. You said Wolf, not Barnaul. They aren't even close in the list, nor in pronunciation or appearance.

I won't let you drag me into the mud with such an asinine argument, but I did not misquote any prices.

I see that you've edited your original post to remove Wolf , or had an Mod do it. Dis-honesty apparently runs rampant here. If you need to descend to this level to salvage wounded pride, so be it.

Jason_G
November 1, 2008, 11:05 AM
You said Wolf, not Barnaul.
No, I didn't.
And the $9.00 stuff you pointed out is steel-cased Barnaul .


Jason

Art Eatman
November 1, 2008, 11:50 AM
Looks like the opening fella got run off without anybody answering his last question. Now, the thread is nothing but an argument about other stuff than the subject of the thread.

Ta-ta...

If you enjoyed reading about "Is an M1A Overkill for a New Shooter" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!