M1A or AR10?

The AR10 is easier to accurize, more fundamentally accurate if free floated, more modular, more ergonomic, and far easier to get a good optic mount on. It's also cheaper and has numerous good manufacturers.

The M1A is available for those who have to have it for nostalgia or whatever. Although the more recent Springfield ones have soft commercial parts including I believe bolts and I'd buy a Fulton Armory instead personally.

The M1A has in at least one configuration a longer barrel, steel construction, comes with, unless specified differently, a walnut stock, and in my opinion the absolute finest sight set up ever placed on a rifle, whereas the AR10 has an aluminum receiver with steel internals, and the plastic stock setup, entirely reasonable sights and is reasonably familiar to the user if one is an AR15 devotee. Both are .308, and use detachable box magazines. The Ar10 can be scoped readily and can use some, but not all of the accessories that are common for an AR15. The M1A can be scoped quite readily, despite what some would say, but as its more of a proprietary mount the initial cost may be greater. Having spent only a small amount of time with the AR10, a fairly inexpensive one, I was not suitably impressed with either the ergonomics or the accuracy of the rifle, I would believe that as the quality of the rifle increases so should the accuracy. You get what you pay for. I purchased an M1A lite match rifle several years ago and never looked back, fit and finish was great, and the accuracy is surprisingly good. I tried Springfield's scope mount and was very disappointed, I eventually settled on an A.R.M.S 18 with quick detach mounts and have no complaints. Once again you get what you pay for. My rifle really likes SMK 165s with BLC2 or imr 4895 at around 2700 fps and I have managed several 5 round groups at 200 m in the 3/4" range. In so far as cost, I have no idea what a comparable AR10 would be worth, I do hear that they are somewhat more inexpensive than the M1A.

" Although the more recent Springfield ones have soft commercial parts including I believe bolts" How recent? What other parts? I have around 5000 rnds on a 6-7 year old Springfield and have not had any evidence of any thing 'soft'.

I had the Springfield M1A Loaded.

Pro:More accurate than I was! Easily shot MOA out to 200 yd with open sights- never got glass on it.

Reliable. Can't remember ever having a malfunction., but then I did pop for high quality mags- milsurp HRAs and Stainless Checkmates.

Very slick match trigger and stainless heavy barrel.

Low recoil impulse thanks to the poly stock and generous buttpad.

Cons: The cast receiver machining was somewhat crude, with visible flash and rough tooling marks in the bolt lug channels. If you lowered the bolt slowly, it would not drop into battery on an empty chamber- had to give it a little smack. Didn't effect shooting though.

The phosphate coated parts were strangely rust prone and required constant protection.

The National Match sight aperture and post were TINY and made reacquiring the target for quick follow up shots very difficult.

The stainless medium barrel, though good for accuracy, made the gun somewhat unbalanced and nose-heavy. It's great length rendered room clearing and vehicle entry\exit impractical. I know this isn't the guns forte, but I wanted something a little more like a Designated Marksman s rifle than a bench sniper gun.

I would get another, but in a somewhat shorter Scout Squad or Socom configuration. I'm really liking the JRA/Rockola Paratrooper model......

Back in the early '90s they had a problem with soft cast bolts. All the recent ones are "F" marked and forged- good to go.

They still have ongoing problems with broken extractors- get a surplus HRA G.I. extractor and you're golden!

Risky buisness said:

" Although the more recent Springfield ones have soft commercial parts including I believe bolts" How recent? What other parts? I have around 5000 rnds on a 6-7 year old Springfield and have not had any evidence of any thing 'soft'.

Click to expand...

Sorry, see above post.

Thanks for the explain. I did buy several GI parts for replacements, should the need arise, nothing yet Im very pleased to say.

I lust for a scout squad in a walnut stock. Now, I could get 2 budget AR10s for the price of a Springfield m1A scout squad, and I know that the AR platform is more adaptable, more ergonomic, upgradable and easily repaired if nessiccary. But I suppose it comes down to personal preference. I shoot an old Plainfield M1 Carbine more accurately than my AR15. Not because the design is inherently better, but because I have more trigger time on the M1 Carbine. And it has to do with the intended use, I'd rather have the AR10 if I was lugging it around the woods, but a trip to the range, I'd have the m1A. I'd love to do a 3 gun match with the m1a scout(not sure that's allowed),1911 and an Ithaca m37...prolly have a heart attack lugging around all that steel and lumber, but I'd be grinning

M1As are cool, but to me, they're not $1700 cool. I'll take a DPMS AR10 for about half the cost.

If you’ve always wanted an M14 then get an M1A

Otherwise, there are other semi-auto .308 options, including several AR10 type rifles

NIGHTLORD40K said:

Back in the early '90s they had a problem with soft cast bolts. All the recent ones are "F" marked and forged- good to go.

They still have ongoing problems with broken extractors- get a surplus HRA G.I. extractor and you're golden!

Click to expand...

Good to know they've fixed the bolt.

Llama Bob said:

The AR10 is easier to accurize, more fundamentally accurate if free floated, more modular, more ergonomic, and far easier to get a good optic mount on. It's also cheaper and has numerous good manufacturers.

The M1A is available for those who have to have it for nostalgia or whatever. Although the more recent Springfield ones have soft commercial parts including I believe bolts and I'd buy a Fulton Armory instead personally.

Click to expand...

I disagree with Llama Bob fairly often, if there was consensus all the time life would be boring. I agree 100% with him this time.

LoneGoose said:

I saw a rifle ad and thought, "How do the Springfield M1A and the AR10 compare to each other? They're both .308 semi-autos, right? What are the pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages? Price comparisons? I have never shot either of these and just got curious.

Click to expand...

AR10: Made for simple rigid optics mounting which is a plus.
Better ergonomics, probably a little quicker reloading. Nice vertical pistol grip. Cheaper to buy a really accurate one.

M1A: In lightweight Vietnam configuration is a truly capable battle rifle.
Old school rifle stock if that feel works for you, and keeps your head about 1 inch lower to the dirt when using the sights.

If you want a heavy target, free floated, scoped bench rifle, or a 16" carbine get the AR10.

If you want a 18"-22" barrel aperture sights battle rifle get the M1A.

I prefer an open top receiver and non pistol grip wood stock generally speaking, nostalgia plays a role in some folks decision I'm sure, but it's not the cut and dry practical vs nostalgia Llama posts.

Well Uncle Sam dumped the M14 (aka M1A) like hot garbage back in the 1960’s. Brought them back out for the GWOT, and dumped them like hot garbage again as the better KAC SR-25 and HK 417 were refined. The KAC and HK depending on the units fielding either aren’t looking back at the M14 platform.

I can’t say I disagree with Uncle Sugar’s assessment either.

Are AR 10s standardized like the AR15s have been? That seems one possible drawback.
Other than that, it is really about standard rifle configuration vs. pistol grip AR configuration. I have a Springfield M1A and like it. I have nothing against the AR10 .... but I have only so much room in my gun safe .....

The AR10 is a modern design. Much easier to mount a scope, and typically more accurate than any M1A. I used both extensively as a sniper in the military, and to me there is just no comparison.

Since I almost never shoot from a bench and because of my familiarity with the AR platform I would go with the AR 10.
That being said, I have always wanted a M1a for nostalgia just like a Garand.

The M1a is more of a rifleman's rifle, but it does require more from the operator... including maintenance and some tuning. Just remember, it is a battle rifle, not a benchrest rifle.

Much like the AR-15, the .308 AR platform has all the advantages of easier mods, easier service, and accuracy potential.

Like the M1 Garand, shooting the M1a is a very physical thing... slam! bam! with everything out in the open.

I'm going through this very same decision right now. I've always wanted an M1A, just not at their price. An AR10 seems like the more practical choice, but I don't necessarily care for my AR15 so I don't know why I'd spend money on an AR10 then.

I have both. I have one M1A and three AR10s. I can re-barrel my AR10s, in ten different calibers. I can buy 10 different new triggers for my AR10s. I can buy a hundred different stocks for my AR10s. I can have a spare upper that totally changes the capabilities of my AR10s.

My answer.... Get both.

Coal Dragger said:

Well Uncle Sam dumped the M14 (aka M1A) like hot garbage back in the 1960’s. Brought them back out for the GWOT, and dumped them like hot garbage again as the better KAC SR-25 and HK 417 were refined. The KAC and HK depending on the units fielding either aren’t looking back at the M14 platform.

I can’t say I disagree with Uncle Sugar’s assessment either.

Click to expand...

Uncle Sam also dumped the 1911, probably for all the right reasons.

It doesn't mean they are hot garbage or any less desirable to the average recreational shooter who appreciates the platform what it is and clear about what it isn't.

Same same for the M1A

Besides, most of us aren't going into battle with our battle rifles

The Earl o Sammich said:

My answer.... Get both.

Click to expand...

Always the A answer