Should I give up on the M1A?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hawksnest

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
53
Location
Kentucky
I've been drooling over SA's M1As for ages now, but can't seem to justify the $1400+ price tag. Should I just concede to getting a $600 M1 from the CMP instead? This isn't a matter of personal preference, since both IMO are great rifles. It's more of a matter of what I'm getting for the money I'm paying, plus what I'll be spending on ammo and accessories.
 
I've always loved 'em too. But the price tag is just too big for me also.

I've always loved the M1. It's chambered in a great cartridge and has it's war time history/legacy.

It looks good, shoots good. The only fault I can find with it is it's weight.
 
I agree, either rifle is a great one. I really don't see a lot of used M1A's and when I do they are still at $1200 and above (asking price). I was in the same boat as you and just couldn't see spending that much on one rifle. What I ended up doing was trading another rifle plus some cash to my dealer who then ordered the rifle for me. Didn't seem to hurt quite as bad that way.
 
They are overpriced without doubt.

So are the M1s in my opinion.... millions of them out there

But I like them both and own several of each. However I haven't bought one in 20yrs.

The prices spiked on them back in the late 80s..... even though at least a million more Garands have become available since then.

No way I'd spend over about 900 bucks for a M1A or 500 for a really nice Garand.

Last Garand I bought was a near perfect Winchester that I paid 375.00 for. Last M1A was a Springfield NM that I paid 700 for.

For 1400 you can buy two really nice ARs.....

A average AR will likely out shoot the "loaded" M1A and surely be less expensive to shoot.
 
If the M1a is totally out of reach for a while,I would go for the Garand.These are both must own rifles.They hold there value and can always be sold for what one paid for them.I have never heard anyone say they didnt like shooting or owning one!Stop procrastinating and get one!
 
I bought a Springfield NM M1A and at the time thought the price was too high, but when I look at the current prices now, I realize I couldn't afford to buy at these current prices. Having said that, I find my Springy to be well put together,extremly accurate, and a fun rifle to shoot. Mine is a keeper, now if we could do something with the price of decent mags.....
 
I have had M1a's and M1's. The M1 Garand is definitely a substitute in my book, but I will never need the extra 12 rounds the M1a provides. The M1's have a little more power, are at least as accurate, and provide a better length of pull and sight picture (for me). If all you had was the 600 I would go for the M1, but be ready to buy little parts here and there to bring it up to speed. Pretty normal for M1's to need small part here or there like a clip latch or clip latch spring, or bullet guide or op rod catch etc. If you get a good M1 you "ain't missin' a thing."
 
I got my Supermatch at the Geneseo, IL factory in 1979 for $550. Still shoots to less than 1 MOA with my handloads. In fact, I made up 50 on Saturday and will be going to the range with that M1A, one of my Garands (I also made up 50 match loads for it) and one of my hunting .308s (I've had good accuracy with that rifle and want to try my M1A match loads with it).

I love both my M1As and my Garands.

FH
 
I had an M1A Match, years back, but profit is profit...

I still have an old weld-up Garand which works quite nicely.

All in all? No way an M1A is worth $800 more than a Garand. Not to me, anyway, not for casual shooting. Were I into competition matches, I'd see it differently, but that's about the only justification...
 
Last Garand I bought was a near perfect Winchester that I paid 375.00 for. Last M1A was a Springfield NM that I paid 700 for.


What year was that?

Flatbush commented that he got a supematch in 1979 for 550 bucks.

Not to be an a-hole, but newsflash, in 2009 dollars that is almost 1,700.00.

I suspect you either got good deals, or the decaed was the 70's, in which case you paid essentially what they cost now.

The value of the items hasn't changed, the value of the dollar has though...
 
I paid $1200 for my M1A, brand new, a little over a year ago. It was a big chunk of change to part with, but I have never regretted it. It is an amazing rifle. There is nothing I would rather have by my side if I ever had to use it for it's true purpose.

However, I also love my M1, and I would not hesitate to take it into battle either. The only issue is that .30 '06 is currently more expensive than 7.62x51, and you have less options when it comes to optics.

The 5 and 600 dollar M1s at the CMP are the deal of the century in firearms, and I recommend everybody take advantage while they can. But if you can afford to own an M1A as well, I highly recommend them. They are still the unequalled best battle rifle in existence, if you ask me.
 
Testosterone,

Actually, as a mathematical economist I knew that. The point was, in 1979, I got a rifle that I love for about half of what it would cost NIB in today's, or in 2009, dollars. I was lucky, not smart, when I was able to get it at the price I paid. In 1979, SAI built these with all USGI parts save the barrel, receiver, and, for the supermatch, the stock.

I had shot in competition when I was in the USAF (possible being one of the four or five pilots in the USAF who knew which end of a rifle was the dangerous end) with an M14 and wanted the experience again as a civilian. I also love the .30 Cal US Service Rifle, M1.

Not to be an a-hole either, but we each have our own utility functions, as we economists tend to say, and I won't take a dump on yours if you don't take a dump on mine.

FH, also generating testosterone
 
FH,

I meant nothing buy it, poor wording on my part.

It was really more directed at kaferhaus who said he would never pay such prices, but unless he bought his at genuine bargains in an estate sale or something, he in actuality did pay such prices, just in another era....its not an attack, just pointing something out that is easily overlooked. When my parents talk about how they bought there house for 8,000 dollars or a brand new car for 1,000 it makes my head spin....but its all in the inflation.

The whole situation speaks more to the value of the dollar vs. what it can buy.

Buying what you enjoy is what matters, I am positive I have things that many people can't imagine spending any money on, never mind what I paid for it.

-T
 
What are you planning on using it for?

I've owned both in the past, both great guns. For my uses I'd take the money savings and the Garand, but differing uses may make it worth spending the extra cash on the M1A.
 
What are you planning on using it for?

I've owned both in the past, both great guns. For my uses I'd take the money savings and the Garand, but differing uses may make it worth spending the extra cash on the M1A.
I will be using it for recreational shooting mostly. I also plan on buying a decent SKS, a Mossy 500, and a good quality .357 revolver. I'm a young guy, just turned 21 in April and have little disposable income.
 
In that case, I'd skip the M1A for a long while. And it's looking like you don't exactly have the scratch for it now anyway. Get a shotgun first.
 
I'd save money, and get a Maverick 88 12 gauge. I did over the Mossberg 500, and it shoots great. Doesn't have the tang safety, but has double rails, and uses Mossberg 500 barrels.
 
As I implied above, I have 2 M1As, one a Supermatch, and four Garands, 2 correct grade, 2 Special (Collector) Grade rifles in New wood stocks with new stock metal. I shoot my Federal GMM equivalent in my Supermatch and surplus ammo in my Socom 16 and HXP and handloads equivalent to Hornady M1 Garand Match ammo in my Garands. I shoot 2-3x/week with rifles and 2-3x/mo with handguns.

I've gotta say, I'd get an M1A if you can afford it but I'd start with a CMP M1 Garand and their Service Grades are "best buys".

Most importantly, shooting frequently is good for maintaining skills, enjoying our 2nd amendment heritage and preparing for hunting or matches if you do that. I take no position on an afterlife, but I know I'm not taking any of my guns with me when I go.

FH
 
I tend to lean to the other side of the equation. Before going back to college I had disposable income and used it to get a couple guns I really like and get a lot of use out of, but since then it's been harder. I wish I'd had the foresight to buy a semi-auto .22 handgun when I had the money. I really kick myself for overlooking that. From that point of view, if you want the M1A and can sort of afford it now, you may kick yourself for not getting it too.

Of the list you mentioned -
I've seen SKS prices coming down. I do like them a lot and may want another myself eventually (I've had two, don't have any now), but with an M1A and reloading you wouldn't lose that much trigger time. Especially not once you add the obligatory .22LR rifle that every shooter should have.
I'd get a good .22LR first as a plinking/training rifle. My wishlist right now includes another 10/22 - utterly plain with tech-sights - specifically for use as a trainer. You can get a decent .22 for about $140-$200 new, sometimes less than a hundred used.
I'd get the M1A second. You want one. You will kick yourself if you settle for less. Put as much as you can afford away every pay day until you have enough (make sure you factor in the cost of ammo and magazines) and just buy the damn thing if you decide that's what you want. And no offense, but don't ask us what you should buy. You're the one who has to be happy with it and there's no way we can possibly know you better than you know yourself. Just think on it yourself and either choose the Garand (which is a great rifle in its own right) or the M1A, then let us know which one you chose.
I also think everyone should have a good defensive handgun. Get it when you can afford it. You may want to get it sooner if you live in a more dangerous area - only you can decide which priority needs addressed first.
On the shotgun, I respect their potential for defense and they're great hunting tools for small game and a lot of fun if you plan to shoot clay pigeons, but they're not the mythical superweapon some seem to think they are. A handgun works just fine for up-close defense and a rifle also is utterly effective from ten feet to several hundred yards. Mossberg and Remington pumps turn up at virtually every gun store, in the local classifieds, and even at yard sales and auctions. You'll be able to get one later - they are in no danger of going away or being discontinued. I'd put this purchase off for a bit yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top