daniel craig
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,815
It mostly came from the fact that it was used a lot by Cold War era militaries fighting communists. The brits used it a lot too.
Thoughts on the M1A as a battle rifle?
- Thread starter Tortuga
- Start date
- Status
daniel craig
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,815
I will say, this brings up an intriguing idea. Obviously they’re hard to get but how do people feel about the FNAR? It’s supposed to be pretty accurate. Someday I may own one.
https://fnamerica.com/products/discontinued-rifles/fnar-competition/
VEPR makes a rifle in 308 though I know next to nothing about it. I think Saiga did too but I also don’t know much about that.
The century arms C308 often came with a top rail for mounting optics and they’re supposed to be able to get 1.5-2 Moa which is more than adequate for a hunting/utility type rifle and they can be found for about $600 when available.
https://fnamerica.com/products/discontinued-rifles/fnar-competition/
VEPR makes a rifle in 308 though I know next to nothing about it. I think Saiga did too but I also don’t know much about that.
The century arms C308 often came with a top rail for mounting optics and they’re supposed to be able to get 1.5-2 Moa which is more than adequate for a hunting/utility type rifle and they can be found for about $600 when available.
Last edited:
I like my M1a and did some drills to compare it to the G3. I think once you get used to it, the rifle can be pretty fast. It sure doesn't lack for power.Maybe this is misplaced, but I'm wondering if people had opinions on using an M1A as a general purpose rifle. I like the 7.62x51 round, and I've seen these around with synthetic stocks. They're really attractive rifles and I'm thinking about picking one up.
Is the price point insane (in your opinion)? It looks like they've been hovering around $1600 for a while now. That's a lot of money to spend on a rifle
Thoughts on the (slightly) less expensive SOCOM?
Common problems not making them worth it?
I've done a fair amount of googling online but I'm kind of curious if more up to date information is floating around with you guys.
Thanks to the person who edited this <3
I had a Vepr 308 that I added an Ace side folder on to and a red dot. That ouftit seemed pretty good for reliability and weight.
Garandimal
member
Maybe this is misplaced, but I'm wondering if people had opinions on using an M1A as a general purpose rifle. I like the 7.62x51 round, and I've seen these around with synthetic stocks. They're really attractive rifles and I'm thinking about picking one up.
Is the price point insane (in your opinion)? It looks like they've been hovering around $1600 for a while now. That's a lot of money to spend on a rifle
Thoughts on the (slightly) less expensive SOCOM?
Common problems not making them worth it?
I've done a fair amount of googling online but I'm kind of curious if more up to date information is floating around with you guys.
Thanks to the person who edited this <3
You can get a .30-06 Service Grade M1 Rifle from the CMP for $750.
... or a "Special" w/ a new Bbl. chambered in .308 for $1050.
Same weight, 24" Bbl., and only a little over 3" longer OAL than the 18" Bbl'ed M1A Scout Squad.
The SA SAINT Victor in .308 is an excellent AR-10 choice.
GR
Last edited:
Risky buisness
Member
The M1A rifle, is a viable choice for many reasons.
We see here folks talking about weight and ' so hard to add optics' and so forth.
I purchased Springfields poloymer/ plastic for mine, a loaded version, added a friendly ARMS 18 mount and a 44mm 4x14.5 mark 4 leupold. I removed the steel flip up buttplate and added a standard recoil pad and a coyote arms cheek riser.
It doesn't weigh much more than some ARs I have seen, all spruced up course.
My rifle is 1.5 " with white box 147, and significantly less with my hand loads. So, realistically, its historic.. powerful, lots of aftermarket stuff including gas regulating plugs, so shelf ammo is not damaging to fire and the ability to be lightened quite a bit. I'm quite impressed with mine,
We see here folks talking about weight and ' so hard to add optics' and so forth.
I purchased Springfields poloymer/ plastic for mine, a loaded version, added a friendly ARMS 18 mount and a 44mm 4x14.5 mark 4 leupold. I removed the steel flip up buttplate and added a standard recoil pad and a coyote arms cheek riser.
It doesn't weigh much more than some ARs I have seen, all spruced up course.
My rifle is 1.5 " with white box 147, and significantly less with my hand loads. So, realistically, its historic.. powerful, lots of aftermarket stuff including gas regulating plugs, so shelf ammo is not damaging to fire and the ability to be lightened quite a bit. I'm quite impressed with mine,
Armorer 101
Member
The longest serving rifle in US military history is of an AR design. Not an other design. So if that is OK, then it becomes a matter of which one.
You want a 308, so it becomes an Armalite, DPMS or LAR design
I prefer the Armalite AR-10 II, for custom barrels, strength, upper to lower lock up and accuracy. However, I build my own so if you need to buy, the 10T with a match trigger can be expensive.
You want a 308, so it becomes an Armalite, DPMS or LAR design
I prefer the Armalite AR-10 II, for custom barrels, strength, upper to lower lock up and accuracy. However, I build my own so if you need to buy, the 10T with a match trigger can be expensive.
Old Dog
Member
True, but I was looking at the "Tanker" version when it came out and almost... almost ordered one. Having a bit of military experience with the M-14 (first rifle I qual'ed Expert on), I'm a bit sentimental about this rifle. But if I get one, whichever version, it'll have wood furniture.
marksman13
Member
I lugged an M21 all over Iraq, so I have a certain nostalgic connection to the design. That said, I sold my last M1A last year with no real plans to replace it. The AR platform is just better all the way around. The AR in 308 is more accurate, more versatile, more modular, easier to work on and much easier to mount optics.
Gordon
Member
I was trained in Basic and AIT with an M14 in 1966, in 1965 was trained in ROTC with a Garand and thought the M14 far superior. When helio dropped into real bad open terrain places in VN in 1968 I always added an M14 with as many magazines as I could carry And an ANPVS2 Starlight scope to add to my issued 1911a1 (with 5 magazines ) . In 1970 tour I did go to sub guns for my duty becaus of being mostly in aircraft .
In 1981 at Gunsite in Az. I was again introduced to the M1a as an ideal rifle to engage distant (up to 600 yard) targets . It was indeed the rifle to have and the M16 was the "poodle carbine" , which is what I all ways felt about the Mattlel AR15 in VN. I chose how ever a Hockler 91 which I scoped with a good S&B scope in the rugged factory mounts and a tuned trigger . That rifle never jammed for me , I shot it for years in "practical rifle" competitions , but during that time acquired at Gunsite a used but like new early M1a to give a try as the National guys all won with them. I sent mine to Smith's Enterprises for a Match conversion and got back an exceptionally accurate, on a square range, tightly fitted gun in later 80s. I still have that M1a in my California homestead, I registered it in 1999 Ca. assault rifle ban , because it has a flash hider and I wanted to keep, as the contract went , my chest of normal capacity mags and my Israelian surplus souped up ANPVS-2 scope for it ! It loosened up nicely after thousands of round and if I get caught in something in Ca. , well I know it will work !
Mean while I have two FNFALs by Arizona response system in Oregon where I live , along with two recent AR10s . They are all great guns, oh yes I also have the H&K 91, with a bazzilion rounds thru it looks like an ex Mexican Army gun now and is secured in a very remote family retreat in Oregon. It still shoots ! The FNFALs are beautiful guns in their own way, they are my BARs ! Big and heavy , I wish I had a full auto one ! The AR10s have high power scopes, one is 6.5 Creedmore the other shorter lighter one in .308. They are great long range weapons, and yes I feel they are "better" than the rest , overall as they are more accurate and servicable and supportable .
But the M1a is a "good" rifle, tho not a carbine , none of the .308 semis are really. A scout rifle .308 is better for that, I learned that in 1981 !
In 1981 at Gunsite in Az. I was again introduced to the M1a as an ideal rifle to engage distant (up to 600 yard) targets . It was indeed the rifle to have and the M16 was the "poodle carbine" , which is what I all ways felt about the Mattlel AR15 in VN. I chose how ever a Hockler 91 which I scoped with a good S&B scope in the rugged factory mounts and a tuned trigger . That rifle never jammed for me , I shot it for years in "practical rifle" competitions , but during that time acquired at Gunsite a used but like new early M1a to give a try as the National guys all won with them. I sent mine to Smith's Enterprises for a Match conversion and got back an exceptionally accurate, on a square range, tightly fitted gun in later 80s. I still have that M1a in my California homestead, I registered it in 1999 Ca. assault rifle ban , because it has a flash hider and I wanted to keep, as the contract went , my chest of normal capacity mags and my Israelian surplus souped up ANPVS-2 scope for it ! It loosened up nicely after thousands of round and if I get caught in something in Ca. , well I know it will work !
Mean while I have two FNFALs by Arizona response system in Oregon where I live , along with two recent AR10s . They are all great guns, oh yes I also have the H&K 91, with a bazzilion rounds thru it looks like an ex Mexican Army gun now and is secured in a very remote family retreat in Oregon. It still shoots ! The FNFALs are beautiful guns in their own way, they are my BARs ! Big and heavy , I wish I had a full auto one ! The AR10s have high power scopes, one is 6.5 Creedmore the other shorter lighter one in .308. They are great long range weapons, and yes I feel they are "better" than the rest , overall as they are more accurate and servicable and supportable .
But the M1a is a "good" rifle, tho not a carbine , none of the .308 semis are really. A scout rifle .308 is better for that, I learned that in 1981 !
derek45
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 709
They are very nice rifles, I like the balance and ergonomics (with a standard USGI barrel profile).
the sights and trigger are great, superior to the FAL or HK91/G3 types
.
.
On the other hand, there is a reason why every army on the planet with a budget has transitioned to 5.56, 5.45, 5.8mm
Post WWII the Brits, Belgians, etc, saw the genius of intermediate cartridge select fire rifles like the stg.44 and AK47, but the pentagon was looking backward, instead of forward and shoved the full power 762NATO down there throats.
ten years later the US was using the 5.56mm in Vietnam
I have fired the M14 on full auto, it's a handful.
the ammo is bulky and heavy
TL;DR - fun on the rifle range, obsolete on the battlefield
.
the sights and trigger are great, superior to the FAL or HK91/G3 types
.
.
On the other hand, there is a reason why every army on the planet with a budget has transitioned to 5.56, 5.45, 5.8mm
Post WWII the Brits, Belgians, etc, saw the genius of intermediate cartridge select fire rifles like the stg.44 and AK47, but the pentagon was looking backward, instead of forward and shoved the full power 762NATO down there throats.
ten years later the US was using the 5.56mm in Vietnam
I have fired the M14 on full auto, it's a handful.
the ammo is bulky and heavy
TL;DR - fun on the rifle range, obsolete on the battlefield
.
CapnMac
Member
M1A represent what M-14 probably should have been, had it not had to go through 13 years of development.
As an iron-sighted wood and iron rifle, it fits that niche rather well.
There's little to no doubt about the engineering or the function of the thing. Even the PolyTech ones "work."
Now, that "battlefield" where troopies were going to engage with iron sights out at 400-600m has rather passed into history (and did so even before the M-14 was fielded in 60-62). Much as pure "leg" infantry has passed into history, too. Infantry expect to work in supported ways, if they face interdiction from >600m, they call upon their attached assets to engage those targets. Infantry need to be mobile in any number of transportation vehicles from open trucks to APC to helos. They ought to have optics for better target discrimination, too. None of these things much argue in favor of a 4 kilo 7.62nato much any more.
If nothing else, straight-in magazines beat rock-n-lock everyday and Sunday, too.
I qualified on an M-14. It's a good arm. Go to battle, I'm selecting an A2 or M4 (and in reality, they'll be like "Sir, here, read these dispatches..." being old is no picnic).
As an iron-sighted wood and iron rifle, it fits that niche rather well.
There's little to no doubt about the engineering or the function of the thing. Even the PolyTech ones "work."
Now, that "battlefield" where troopies were going to engage with iron sights out at 400-600m has rather passed into history (and did so even before the M-14 was fielded in 60-62). Much as pure "leg" infantry has passed into history, too. Infantry expect to work in supported ways, if they face interdiction from >600m, they call upon their attached assets to engage those targets. Infantry need to be mobile in any number of transportation vehicles from open trucks to APC to helos. They ought to have optics for better target discrimination, too. None of these things much argue in favor of a 4 kilo 7.62nato much any more.
If nothing else, straight-in magazines beat rock-n-lock everyday and Sunday, too.
I qualified on an M-14. It's a good arm. Go to battle, I'm selecting an A2 or M4 (and in reality, they'll be like "Sir, here, read these dispatches..." being old is no picnic).
I like the 7.62x51 mm caliber more than the 30-06.
Maybe I have really unrealistic standards but that's not very good shooting imo. I know a lot of people love FALs, but that's almost a 2 foot difference in shot groups. If you're shooting at something taking cover, that's a pretty big margin of error.
I appreciate this. I've left several "survial" forums because so many of those people are clearly out of touch with reality. I wasn't trying to have that happen.
That's acceptable accuracy. All your other points about reliability and ergonomics are very good points.
Very fair assessment.
I actually agree wit hthis.
I think this is the godlen comment in this thread.
Very good point
This is a great comment. I have looked into the scout rifles because they're a little more manageable. The only thing I'll throw out is that they do make mini-14s that shoot 5.56, but even the later serials have not really been that great from my experience. The ones with wooden stocks have a common feature of having the trigger assembly fall out if you shoot them at rapid fire. They're also like a 3 MOA weapon, and that's not acceptable in my opinion for the options floating around at that price point.
Very good contribution and I really appreciate this input. I was not aware of the casting of the receiver until this thread. THR is a good forum for information like this.
I have a lot of experience with ARs and I definitely hear the ergonomics argument.
I might be a little older, but it's traditionally considered myopic to comment on a thread without reading the entire thread first. Your question is answered in literally the first response.
People are going to throw rocks at me, but I actually agree with this assessment. I think the FAL is kind of overhyped. It seems to come out on top of the M14, but I really think it's a stretch to say it comes out over other platforms. It was just adopted by NATO and saw widespread use, but it did have colossal failures in Israel that costed people their lives.I feel like this phrase is much more appropriate for the AK (although I do understand they are used by soviet forces which aren't exactly renowned for their freedoms).
Great post, but what biases were in the trials? Sincerely asking here.
I agree with this and think it's actually a really good thing to consider. I do anticipate another AWB soonish.
Fair assessment, although I will throw out that M14s are still being used by the American Army and Marines as designated marksman rifles.
I do really like the C308 and agree with your comment, but I will mention that they often have headspace issues (which is dangerous). They also are selling for around $1000 used now. So imagine buying a rifle for like $1000, having to wait until you get feeler gauges to shoot it, only to find that you have to buy new rollers before you can do so safely. Again, I think this is probably a bad time to be in the market to buy military style weapons but, at that price point, you're probably better off getting something else in my opinion. There's a lot of other options floating around.
Yeah I kind of feel the exact same way when people try to act like these rifles are too cumbersome for practical use. I mean we were training to be swinging 240Bravos around indoors. I don't really think people realize how functional a weapon can be with good training.
Thanks. This is similar to the setup I'm looking for.
Will consider this.
This is kind of what I'm thinking. I'm hearing a lot of people who have great experiences with their M1as.
I'll be looking more into this since so many people have mentioned it.
Lucky you! When did you serve? What branch?
You guys are really selling me on the AR. I just feel like ARs are becoming boring to look at because I'm seeing them everywhere.
I really like this comment. I think I might try looking at a scout, but that price point is really murder. You're talking almost $2000 for the rifle, not including mags and ammo.
Good point. The only thing I'm thinking is that the battlefield drastically changed in WWII and Vietnam, which is to your point about intermediate cartridges. The 5.56 to be great for intermediate exchanges, but you're not going to be able to accurately hit something past 400 meters and do a lot of damage. The battle rifles of old might be making a comeback if people start fighting further away.
Yeah, that seems like the consensus. I just keep hearing a lot of people complain that the 5.56x45 mm cartridge as being underpowered.
Maybe I'll just buy ammo instead lol. Anyway you guys have given me a lot to think about. Please keep this discussion going.
One thing to consider when choosing between AR10's: Many are commercial grade or have not been rigorously tested by the gov. Many were designed from the onset with the ever so stringent and strenuous requirements of the weekend warrior in mind. SO: if you are seriously considering an AR10 for "duty" consider the pedigree. Proprietary items might be hard to source in a pinch.
Westrom Armalites: designed with reliability as the main concern, used modified M14 mags then later gen ii mags of high quality.
LMT: had military contract with Great Brittain, New Zealand.
Others?
Westrom Armalites: designed with reliability as the main concern, used modified M14 mags then later gen ii mags of high quality.
LMT: had military contract with Great Brittain, New Zealand.
Others?
Last edited:
DustyGmt
Member
I would have quoted you OP but it was going to take some time, you figured out multi quote, good for you I've been here about 5 years and still dont know how to use that function. But as to the 5.56 being underpowered, nah. Whoever gets shot with it pretty much dies or goes away somewhere else to die. I'm pretty sure the Army conducted studies that put the 5.56 and 7.62 right on par with each other in terms of fatalities. Dont ask for specifics on that study, it was a snippet from a report I read a while back but you could probably find it if you were interested in the subject.
I dont know if the FAL is overhyped, its definitely a quality weapon, the thing I didnt care for was the balance of it and feeling like it wants tip over in your hand, basically top heavy for lack of more specific term. Not the kind of gun you can cradle nicely like an M1A and others when not in firing grip.
I dont know if the FAL is overhyped, its definitely a quality weapon, the thing I didnt care for was the balance of it and feeling like it wants tip over in your hand, basically top heavy for lack of more specific term. Not the kind of gun you can cradle nicely like an M1A and others when not in firing grip.
CapnMac
Member
Number one was "Not Invented Here"--which was based in a lengthy commitment with Springfield Armory, and a We're the Army and You're Not. So, there was a lot of national chauvinism afoot. The Generals were only barely convinced in the 7.62nato as was. And were closing ranks and circling wagons after the "scare" caused by the Brit .280enfield (7x43) being adopted as the .280nato (and 7x43nato). It was also not a Garand design, either.
There was significant mission creep, too. The new arm was originally meant to replace M-1 and the M-1918 BAR. Then, they piled the function of the Carbine in there as well (which was later dropped as impossible). All of that is why it took 13 years to get the thing adopted in 1958. It was issued out on a Regiment by Regiment bases (by Brigades). Whic his why Garands were still in front line service in 1962.
There's a lot of that around. It's not always attributed, though. In Service, it's occasionally referred to as FOBlore. Everyone "knows" an "operator" in the "sandbox" but darn few admit to knowing a Postal Clerk or Supply goon.
That's just part and parcel of Sea Stories, too.
tark
Member
Quite right. We have several T-44s and two T-48s in the Arsenal Museum that were actually in the trials. The Army kept changing the rules and moving the goalposts until they found a way for the T-44 to come out on top, I thought I had a pic on my phone that showed them but I don't. Museum is still closed, with no end in sight.
Oops! I did find one pic showing the FALs, but I can't remember which two were actually in the trials. I'm gonna guess and say the two wooden stocked ones. (?) The AK is a Chinese type 56 and it has never been fired. It was captured during the first gulf war.
Attachments
![IMG_5817[1].JPG](/data/attachments/905/905663-0d028ffb819c03568f6cfed5d7594142.jpg)
DocRock
member
Sure. I prefer the G3 and FAL, and since they will all three be in semi auto configuration, the major issue with a 7.62 NATO rifle is taken out of the equation. I dislike Springfield Armory, so it would not be my choice, and I like my hearing, so the SOCOM definitely wouldn’t be my choice, but as a “battle rifle” the M1A is as good as the others, and better than a poodle shooter.
I hear that too, from people on internet forums. You know who I haven't heard it from? From people who have used it in the last 30 years to kill other people in combat
Anyway....You can get M14's with "better" receivers than an M1A, if you wish. You'll pay for it though. Look up Smith Enterprise and LRB.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,414
My training and first tour was with an M-14. I liked it alot. I was able to put 9 out 10 shots in one hole sighting in. It was smaller than a Garand and a fine rifle. I was also issued an M-16 in 1969 for my second tour. I was very happy with that as well. For one thing you could shoot it on full auto. A feature that was blocked off on M-14 as useless. Which is why I liked the M-60. I don't think the commercial M1as are as good as the issue weapon. I like FAL's but I would rather have an AR-10. Nothing wrong with an M1a though
That said, I don't plan to replace an AR-15 with an AR-10. For long range shooting I have a bolt action. I can see why others might but I don't need a heavy semi auto.
A good friend of mine was a sniper in Nam and used an Army custom built M-14 with a Leupold scope. He said it gave him a big advantage and you can read about it in the book, "Black Horse riders". He could see and hit VC shooting out of bunkers.
That said, I don't plan to replace an AR-15 with an AR-10. For long range shooting I have a bolt action. I can see why others might but I don't need a heavy semi auto.
A good friend of mine was a sniper in Nam and used an Army custom built M-14 with a Leupold scope. He said it gave him a big advantage and you can read about it in the book, "Black Horse riders". He could see and hit VC shooting out of bunkers.
Last edited:
tark
Member
Damn! Doc, that's TWO things we can agree on! I prefer The G-3 over the others. I've never owned an HK-91 but I have shot several and all were tack drivers, even with that goofy diopter rear sight. I especially like the charging handle's positioning on the left side.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,414
I liked the FNAR version. They also made a commercial version. Currently available as a Browning BAR. A few years ago they had a Winchester version as well I think it was called an SXR. I looked at one on sale in 300 Win Mag but passed on it. Saiga did make a .308 but they are no longer imported.
I'm with you on that last bit. For hunting or longer range use a bolt action is great, and they're lighter and simpler than AR 10 style rifles. I don't think the slower cycling or lower capacity matters in the roles that you would employ those types of rifles. For general defensive purposes or medium game in a pinch, an AR 15 is the best choice as far as I'm concerned.
Long ago and far away an M-16 failed spectacularly when needed. There after I carried an M-14. Today my go to is a Springfield Scout Squad. I've heard all the ways the 5.56 and the AR pattern rifles are so much better. But, the M-14 and it's civilian counterpart the M1A have proven much more reliable for me.
It is a little unfair in my mind to characterize the FAL trial as unfair, or "not invented here".
As if to say that bad intentions were at play. Keep in mind the largest and most effective fighting force in US history had just won two simultaneous theaters with the Garand rifle design. I can surely understand the hesitance to just throw that experience to the wind and forsake the hard won lessons for this new johnny come lately from Belgium. I believe the reviewers did what they thought would be best for the young men. And the M14 was not the wrong answer.
- Status
