I need help. I've been debating the purchase of each of these rifles for some time. With the (hopefully slim) chance of H.R. 1022 passing, I would like to get one or the other soon. Getting both is not an option at this stage. It will be used primarily for plinking and home defense. I'm aware of the price difference between the two as well as the cost of ammo. I'm looking for input/opinions as to which rifle you would prefer. Accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and usefullness in a self defense scenario, etc. are all important. Thanks in advance for the info.
AR15 or Springfield M1a???
- Thread starter zepphound
- Start date
- Status
Bazooka Joe71
Member
AR...Cheaper platform, cheaper ammo.
Use the $ you save on the rifle and buy as many 30 rd mags and as much ammo as you can.
Its always up for debate, but id have to say that a 16" CAR 15 is going to be better suited for HD.
Use the $ you save on the rifle and buy as many 30 rd mags and as much ammo as you can.
Its always up for debate, but id have to say that a 16" CAR 15 is going to be better suited for HD.
For home defense, 5.56 over 7.62.
Plinking, again 5.56 over 7.62 because its cheaper.
So between the choices, AR15 seems a better choice.
Personally, I went with an M1A for the ability to hunt larger game as the .223/5.56 is not legal for deer in some places. Had it not been for that, I would probably would not have gotten the M1A. I also didn't really consider the M1A good for home defense in an apartment setting.
Additionally, I bought several stripped AR15 lowers which you can get from $100-150 each (some are higher but you can get nice ones for under $150). This might help your money situation if you really do want both and its only money holding you back. You can buy the stripped lower now, which is the "registered/serialized" part and then buy everything else later. It is relatively easy to assemble an AR15 (lower parts kit, stock and complete upper.) For example, Del-ton sells the entire kit, minus the stripped receiver for around $500. Everything other than the stripped lower you can order online with no hassles.
Plinking, again 5.56 over 7.62 because its cheaper.
So between the choices, AR15 seems a better choice.
Personally, I went with an M1A for the ability to hunt larger game as the .223/5.56 is not legal for deer in some places. Had it not been for that, I would probably would not have gotten the M1A. I also didn't really consider the M1A good for home defense in an apartment setting.
Additionally, I bought several stripped AR15 lowers which you can get from $100-150 each (some are higher but you can get nice ones for under $150). This might help your money situation if you really do want both and its only money holding you back. You can buy the stripped lower now, which is the "registered/serialized" part and then buy everything else later. It is relatively easy to assemble an AR15 (lower parts kit, stock and complete upper.) For example, Del-ton sells the entire kit, minus the stripped receiver for around $500. Everything other than the stripped lower you can order online with no hassles.
Last edited:
10-Ring
Member
I ended up w/ both. Search the boards for awhile & find a deal on a pre-owned M1A & do a project on the AR build. That's what I did -- as I had $$, I bought another component until it was complete 
cheygriz
member
Definately AR. With extra uppers, you can have a dozen rifles on one lower.
SoCalShooter
Member
Lets get one thing out of the way....GET THEM BOTH now the AR versus the M1a has its advantages mostly cost and tacticool accessories. But I would take the m1a first and get the AR second.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
I have both. Right now 7.62 surpluss is scarce, and expensive. Buying right now - Go with the AR. Let me make it clear that I love my M1A, its just that if I were to buy one of the 2 right now, it'd be the AR.
Darkker
Member
I like the M1a for reliability MUCH more than the AR. The M1a is also much more accurate, stock Vs. stock.
As far as home defense?? Seriously, Confucious say don't use cannon to kill mosquito. Either of these rifles will probably make it clear across your house/apt. Not a wise choice for either.
On the other hand, most of us don't get paid to kill people for a living, so the AR is the cheaper method for smaller vermin.
As far as home defense?? Seriously, Confucious say don't use cannon to kill mosquito. Either of these rifles will probably make it clear across your house/apt. Not a wise choice for either.
On the other hand, most of us don't get paid to kill people for a living, so the AR is the cheaper method for smaller vermin.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
The AR15, of course. 
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Darkker said:
I don't know a gentle way to say this, so I will just say that this is flat out not true. The AR15 dominates all modern accuracy competitions among self-loading rifles. To make an M1A as accurate as a stock AR15 requires more expense and effort, especially over time as parts wear from use.
This depends a great deal on your ammo selection. The Rifle Forum Reading Library thread tacked at the top of this forum has a great deal of information to help people make informed decisions on this. With some ammo, a .308 may penetrate even less than a handgun round.
As far as the original poster's question; both rifles are plenty adequate to do the job you mention. I would suggest trying both and buying the one you feel more confident with. Like everything else in life, there are tradeoffs.
BADUNAME13
Member
.308 is a MUCH better round.
5.56 is inadequate.
5.56 is inadequate.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well, that kind of depends on what you need done too. To use just one example, you can carry about 20 rounds of .308 for 1lb and about 30 rounds of .223 for 1lb. Assuming a 10lb load, .223 only has to be 70% as effective as .308 to yield more kills per lb/ammo carried.
Before you can say a round is inadequate, you first need to define what you intend to do with it. .308 will generally have better penetration and terminal effectiveness; but it will also have more recoil, blast and heat as well. No free rides in the rifle world. If you get something in one area, you are usually trading something else for it.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,510
If I had to have only one, it'd be the AR. It's more versatile as a system. Swap uppers and you have a carbine. Another upper and you have a long range gun (think 24" heavy barrel) good for 600 yards. Another upper and you can have a 9mm pistol caliber carbine. It can be light, handy, easy for the wife or kid to use to defend home & hearth. The M-14, on the other hand, is a prima-donna of a gun (hey, I like it) when it comes to keeping it accurate. That's why the Army gave up on the M-25 as a sniper rifle. You needed an armorer just to maintain it all the time.
Slvr Surfr
Member
As a majority of others stated, the AR is probably the best way to go, especially if you just plinking at the range. There is an extremely large selection to help customize the thing too. Im not sure if there is as much ability to change the M1.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
.308 is overkill
5.56 is perfect
5.56 is perfect
No_Brakes23
Member
I saw the thread title and thought "Apples and Oranges", but then I realized what the poster was saying.
For plinking and HD, AR all the way. No disrespect to the M1A or 7.62NATO, obviously they are the more potent combo. In an HD situation, everything, even bird shot and 22LR can penetrate walls, but from what I understand, 5.56NATO loses a lot of energy after passing through a wall, so it might be "less lethal" if you don't hit your target. As for effectiveness, that seems to vary based on barrel twist, barrel length, and ammunition. Check out the AR-15 Ammo Oracle for info about 5.56NATO as an HD round.
Also the AR is handier indoors than an M1A.
So my suggestion would be to get the AR now and get an M1A later
For plinking and HD, AR all the way. No disrespect to the M1A or 7.62NATO, obviously they are the more potent combo. In an HD situation, everything, even bird shot and 22LR can penetrate walls, but from what I understand, 5.56NATO loses a lot of energy after passing through a wall, so it might be "less lethal" if you don't hit your target. As for effectiveness, that seems to vary based on barrel twist, barrel length, and ammunition. Check out the AR-15 Ammo Oracle for info about 5.56NATO as an HD round.
Also the AR is handier indoors than an M1A.
So my suggestion would be to get the AR now and get an M1A later
byf43
Member
Both Bartholomew Roberts and 4v50 Gary have stated facts that I want to echo.
I'd buy the AR first. The platform is easy to shoot, is accurate, and you can add different uppers and change calibers from 9mm to .50 Beuwolf (sp???) and others.
With that said, I own both the AR (in HBAR configuration) that shoots little, tiny groups at 100 and 200 yds., and the M1A that shoots less than MOA at 200 yds.
The ammunition factor is next.
At the moment, .223 / 5.56x45mm NATO is more plentiful than .308/7.62x51mm NATO. (And that ain't sayin' much!)
The surplus 7.62 is all but non-existent. (Most surplus ammo is 'drying up', much to my chagrin.)
I'd buy the AR first. The platform is easy to shoot, is accurate, and you can add different uppers and change calibers from 9mm to .50 Beuwolf (sp???) and others.
With that said, I own both the AR (in HBAR configuration) that shoots little, tiny groups at 100 and 200 yds., and the M1A that shoots less than MOA at 200 yds.
The ammunition factor is next.
At the moment, .223 / 5.56x45mm NATO is more plentiful than .308/7.62x51mm NATO. (And that ain't sayin' much!)
The surplus 7.62 is all but non-existent. (Most surplus ammo is 'drying up', much to my chagrin.)
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
I have both.
I bought the AR first, for all the various reasons outlined.
I bought the AR first, for all the various reasons outlined.
- Status
