Springfield M1A versus Armalite AR10

[Auburn1992]

Hello, just another poll I'm looking to do. I am not really interested in buying one of these rifles (well maybe an M1a in a few years), but I am wondering which you guys think is better.

I really like the whole .308 in an AR15 thing, but I think I would have to stick to an M1a because it is tried and true.

What qualities do you like about each?

Also PLEASE post some pictures!

 

[Candiru]

Disclaimer: I own an M1A, but have nothing in the AR family.

That being said, if the AR10 is true to form, it will be more accurate than anything short of a match M1A. It'll also support clamping on any sort of gadget or gizmo you want, if you're into that sort of thing. It's also going to be easier to mount and use a scope on the AR10.

What does the M1A have going for it? The magazines are significantly cheaper and it's theoretically more reliable, although practically there won't be much difference if you clean them regularly. The M1A is easier to clean, easier to single- or clip-load, and its heavier weight will probably soak up some recoil. There is slightly higher availability of M1A parts than AR10 components. I also love M1A ergonomics; this is a subjective evaluation, though.

If I had unlimited money and could buy any rifles I wanted, I would end up buying a bunch of M1As and would probably never get around to an AR10.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Both rifles will probably be as accurate as you ever need them to be. The AR-10 won't be necessarily easier to keep in match trim, if that is what you are after, but it will probably be cheaper. With the M1A, you can either have your rifle bedded, and re-bed it as necessary, you can save yourself the hassle and spring for one of the chassis systems on the market (Troy, JAE, Sage, ect) that eliminate the need for bedding, or you can accept the rifle is probably already more accurate than you are and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Some chassis systems, notably the Troy Ind., also make it easier to mount a scope. Most have plenty of rail-estate for you to mount gizmos and gadgets from.

The AR is easier to field strip, but not necessarily easier to clean. With the AR, you inevitably end up with a bunch of crud in the receiver, lots of small edges and corners, and that #!*& star chamber. The M1A really requires only a 3/8 socket wrench (or purpose built tool) and a quick wipe down of the gas system every couple hundred rounds. The receiver, bolt, and chamber stays clean and cool enough that it only really has to be cleaned once in a great while. I cleaned mine every 200 rounds or so, but there was so little to clean at that point that it really isn't necessary unless you're in a habit of dropping your rifle in the sand.

I personally prefer the M1A, giving it a slight advantage in ergonomics, balance, and control placement. Most or all of these are admittedly personal preference, as is my huge preference for the overall feel and shooting characteristics of the M1A. While the M1A comes across as a serious tool, a rifle built by and for riflemen, the AR always looked, felt, and operated like a toy to me. Even being trained in its use, I knew I could keep it running, but it never inspired my confidence. The sound of the buffer spring in particular always made the rifle sound like a cartoon to me, and I was never able to get over it.

Like the above poster, if I had the money, I could easily see me with a large collection of M1As, FALs, HK roller lock clones, and AKs, but perfectly content without every owning one of Eugene Stoner's Wonder-Rifles.

 

[possum]

i would take the m1a more specifically i would take the scout model.

the ar10's are nice, and if you already are familiar with the ar platform than that akes a lot of sense to go that route, but you can never go wrog with an ar or m1a platform, i wish i could buy both, one day maybe

 

[Nolo]

If, by AR-10, you mean SR-25, I'd take the AR-10.
However, the original AR-10 design I don't think a whole lot of, other than as a base to start fixing all the problems of, so I'd take the M14/M1A.

 

[Dienekes]

M1A. Good rifles, and at this stage of the game no .30 cal ARs are going to have anywhere near the proven history that the M14 platform does.

I first got introduced the AR platform by my uncle in '66 and have learned to love it as a well developed carbine. But for .30 caliber I want the M1A. Mine is a std that evolved: glass bedded, and now wears a compact ACOG in a dedicated Smith mount. Runs like a Timex.

 

[GarandOwner]

Wow here a a completely new and un repeated thread .........not!

But I vote M1A

 

[stubbicatt]

The ergos on the AR10 make it better for me to shoot well. The hood of the rear receiver of the M14 always seems to give me a fat lip.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

With one, you have a budget for the rifle. With the other, you need a two budgets - one for the rifle, and one for the scope mount. They're both excellent. I like the ergos and economies of the AR style a bit more as a practical matter.

 

[mljdeckard]

Stubbicat's story sounds familiar.

I had an M1A Standard, with a 2nd gen mount and dedicated SA optics with the bubble level and graduated reticle. Got it in a package along with 6 mags and a case, did a little surgurey on the stock to accomodate a Harris bipod. Alrighty then.

Go to the range, and a few things became very apparent. First, the mount sat so low, that while it did allow ejection, when I tried to zero the iron sights, I had to elevate the rear so high that the mount was blocking the view. I gave up on that and went to the scope.

Not only did I have fits trying to even keep it on the paper at 100 yards, (I later decided that this was due to improper setting of the mount,) It beat me up BAD. For me to get my eye at the proper distance from the scope, I had to lean way into it. So, leaning way over the top of it, I was so close that the rim of the scope kept dinging me over the eye. I decided that there was no honor in bleeding at the range and went home. I kept the scope and put it back on a Remington 700 VS .308.

I love the rifle, but I decided to make it a real long-range shooter with a scope, for ME, I would have needed a custom stock or one with an adjustable cheek piece. On regular rifles, this is nice, but on THIS rifle, with the elevation of the scope, it's a necessity. I probably also would have needed a mount with more option for scope-eye distance adjustment. This would have turned my bargain package into a custom job I wouldn't be able to afford to shoot. Not bad by anyone's definition, it just became more than I was willing to devote for the idea.

I decided that if I did it again, (set up a battle rifle for general use,) I would look at an Armalite AR-10 or an SR-25. And I would feel even better about an option that takes M-14 mags.

 

[GunTech]

I've owned several variants of both rifles. Right now I am shooting the M1a scout. The AR-10 will outshoot the M1A - period. With work, the M1A can do under MOA. The AR-10 can be turned into a 1/4 MOA rifle. There is a reason AR type rifles dominate service rifle matches.

On the other hand, the M1A is rugged and stout. It also makes a superior club. Drop a Rader trigger into one, and you can get a safe trigger that is under 2 pounds, and the sights are probably the best ever put on any service rifle. Scope mounting on the M1A is a chore, and requires a cheek piece or aftermarket stock.

The M1A will tolerate more abuse and neglect than the AR. It all depends on what you like.

 

[Tarvis]

I don't have an M1A and I do have, er, just sold my first ar15, and I think the M1A takes the cake. Sexier lines with a classic, yet rugged feel. Short of the Socom II there aren't many places to mount "stuff", but who needs it anyway? Optics if you want it, bipod if you need it. Forward grips are cool, flashlights are neat, but you don't fool anyone when you say it's a necesity.

 

[profreedomokie]

Ar10 vs M1a

There is no comparsion here to me. I've owned a loaded M1a and have seven ARs in three different calibers. My AR-10T has put 3 rds. in one hole at 100 yds. off a bipod. I don't think a M1a Super Match can shoot as good. ARs are easier to clean,tear down,work on,and are easier on your brass. You answer is clearly seen on the firing line at Camp Perry.
profreedomokie

 

[H2O MAN]

The AR-10 is a fine rifle. I had an ArmaLite A4 SPR plus a A4 carbine upper.
It shot fine with Gen-II mags, but there is something about the M14 platform.
I sold my AR-10 to fund another M14 build - no regrets

 

[GBExpat]

I dislike the Stoner direct gas system so I prefer an M14 Clone.

 

[Professor Gun]

I have both and love 'em. You can't go wrong with either of them. Handle both of them and see which fits you best, they are both Cadillacs of the rifles IMHO.

My only complaint is the cost of the magazines for the AR-10.

 

[For Freedom]

People use .308 ARs for service rifle matches?

Just because ARs are used more in matches doesn't mean they are better than M14-type weapons.

I can't imagine why anyone would use an M14-type in a match these days. Why use a cartridge that is twice as powerful and recoils more if you don't have to? Why go lock, stock, and barrel with bedding when you can have a free-float barrel? Why go with the massive reciprocating parts in an M14-type's operating system when you can have direct impingement? Why buy a $2,000 NM M14 type when you can have a NM AR15 for $1200?

I prefer the M14-type over the AR15, because I perceive the design as more reliable and durable. Stated another way, I feel M14-types are better battle rifles than AR15s. If I want a dedicated target gun, I'd get an AR15 like the RRA NM.

 

[trinydex]

i think the ar wins in terms of ergonomics. i didn't see that expressly mentioned yet.