Is an M1A Overkill for a New Shooter

[Jason M]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The AR-10 is over-priced and over-rated, stick with the M14/M1A.

 

[JR47]

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]

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]

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]

Jr47

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]

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!

 

[amprecon]

Get the M1A, you'll never need anything else.

 

[rtn]

Another view

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]

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]

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.

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]

Jr47

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]

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]

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]

You said Wolf, not Barnaul.

No, I didn't.

And the $9.00 stuff you pointed out is steel-cased Barnaul .

Jason

 

[Art Eatman]

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...