Thoughts on the M1A as a battle rifle?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I trust my life with a M1A, I prefer it over a FAL for various reasons or any other 7.62 battle rifle. Then again AR-10 style rifles are more common now, a excellent design with advantages also. Every M1A I have ever shot goes boom with any ammo without adjusting any gas something, can't say that about a FAL.

Then again I trust my life with 5.56mm also. Never been in a gun fight with any of them, but listened enough to others that have to believe 5.56 is good enough in most cases.
 
You’d have to be pretty ignorant to say an M1A could not be used as a battle rifle.

Most original M14s were pinned to semi anyway. Most nations found full auto in their 7.62x51 rifles to be a poor idea and useful under only extremely few circumstances. The British didn’t even build their version of the FAL with full auto capability for example. Too much recoil in the .308 cartridge causes way too much bullet climb and wastes rounds that are bulkier and heavier than smaller cartridges.
 
JCooperfan1911 said:
You’d have to be pretty ignorant to say an M1A could not be used as a battle rifle.

Most original M14s were pinned to semi anyway. Most nations found full auto in their 7.62x51 rifles to be a poor idea and useful under only extremely few circumstances. The British didn’t even build their version of the FAL with full auto capability for example. Too much recoil in the .308 cartridge causes way too much bullet climb and wastes rounds that are bulkier and heavier than smaller cartridges.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone said the M1a was not a battle rifle, just that the civilian version, the M1a has never been battle tested. They are fine weapons and marginally more accurate than the Fal. The same can be said for the AR-10.
 
JCooperfan1911 said:
You’d have to be pretty ignorant to say an M1A could not be used as a battle rifle.

Most original M14s were pinned to semi anyway. Most nations found full auto in their 7.62x51 rifles to be a poor idea and useful under only extremely few circumstances. The British didn’t even build their version of the FAL with full auto capability for example. Too much recoil in the .308 cartridge causes way too much bullet climb and wastes rounds that are bulkier and heavier than smaller cartridges.
Click to expand...
Yes as I mentioned in my post, I loved the M-14 but as you said, it was not usable in full auto. I was allowed to try it in basic training. It was intended to replace the BAR, the M1, and the Garand but never did it because of not being usable in full auto, which is necessary in modern warfare.
 
jeepnik said:
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.
Click to expand...
While my experience with the M-16 is good, I have buddies that agree with you completely and I don't blame you. One of those buddies lost a leg in a rice patty. He hates em and I won't argue with anyone who is a vet about that. Civilian opinions don't count for much.
 
It was the successor to the M-1, an "improved" version correcting many of the M-1's perceived faults.The idea of an 8-9 pound rifle firing a full power rifle round...who thought that up ? There was supposed to be a heavy barrel version, the M-15 , the replacement for the BAR, approved, never went into production. One infantryman assigned to Germany said he fired the M-14E2, said it wasn't that bad if you knew how to handle it, he said they had an armorer who improvised several effective muzzle brakes. I trained with the M-14 in BCT at Fort Dix, Summer of 1967, I will get one "someday". The lack of accessories doesn't bother me, I think they are often overrated.
 
d2wing said:
While my experience with the M-16 is good, I have buddies that agree with you completely and I don't blame you. One of those buddies lost a leg in a rice patty. He hates em and I won't argue with anyone who is a vet about that. Civilian opinions don't count for much.
Click to expand...

Does the undyin' affection and adulation for the M1 rifle by combat vets gets the same carte blanche as well...?

:D




GR
 
bearcreek said:
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.
Click to expand...
I bought my M1A scout probably a shade under a decade ago now, the cast reciever wasnt even a consideration at the time I bought it as it was an impulse buy but I remember a company making M1A's with forged receivers around that time, I believe it was Fulton Armory? Does that sound right, are they still around. I am pretty sure the name started with an F and were supposed to be great quality if you wanted a forged reciever.
 
d2wing said:
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.
Click to expand...
I shot and sighted in my uncles FNAR this past summer. Awesome gun. Nice Swarovski on top, tack driver. It looks like it was made for SWAT or military/leo use.
 
I have an M1A as the "period" (the punctuation kind) to my M1 Garand collection.

I also have a 308 Win Garand for the transition to the M1A. It's a CMP Special and not an original Arsenal rebuild though.

I doubt that I'll ever find an affordable gas trap Garand which would be the first "capital letter" to the collection.

I like shooting the M1A but I am sure glad it will not do full auto.:)
 
sure they go bang and the 308 is no slouch. BUT they're heavy, expensive, inaccurate, don't take optics well due to stock design, the mags are a little finnicky to insert: lets call it what it is: an update to an 80 year old design. It's not in my top 35 semi-auto's I'd want to take to war, but it's a semi auto 308, it will work in a pinch.
 
greyling22 said:
sure they go bang and the 308 is no slouch. BUT they're heavy, expensive, inaccurate, don't take optics well due to stock design, the mags are a little finnicky to insert: lets call it what it is: an update to an 80 year old design. It's not in my top 35 semi-auto's I'd want to take to war, but it's a semi auto 308, it will work in a pinch.
Click to expand...

I'll agree. I never said the M1A was the be all to end all of battle rifles.

I've got my share of AR-15's. I was impressed with the accuracy capability when shooting a friends Service Rifle competition rifle that sent me on a an AR-15 building spree. It is quite the rifle platform but I'll agree it has its limitations.

To disagree with the Ordinance department experts, I do not feel a single rifle platform can fit every need. The choice of rifle for the task at hand needs to be chosen on the needs of the task at hand.
 
My personal spin...

I have a Socom16... love it to death. I actually tried to buy a Scout, but Springfield said they were not slated for production anytime soon, and I couldn't find one anywhere; I headed into the LGS to buy a Standard... and they had this Socom thing on the wall below the Standard... and I came home with the Socom16. It is a Rifleman's rifle... heavy, physical, steel and wood (well, sorta.) It is rewarding to shoot. Having said that, it's a terrible platform for modifications... if that's what you want. The Socom even comes with a sight rail... that I took off; there are better ways to mount an optic on it than the included rail, if you must. The Socom is fast, pretty handy, and packs that .308 power in a size not much bigger than a 16" AR.

CPrTRZyl.jpg

Some people have a problem with Springfield... I don't. The M1a carries a lifetime warranty. I think the cast vs forged receiver is a specious argument.

Someone mentioned muzzle brakes... the Socom has an excellent muzzle brake... simple and effective. Yes, it's loud, but no more loud than any 16" barreled .308 rifle. No, I would not want to shoot mine indoors without hearing protection, but that's a dumb argument, too... I wouldn't want to shoot a 5.56mm indoors without hearing protection.

yCe7xZ1l.jpg

It does require more out of the shooter than most other platforms... a few proprietary tools, and attention to detail on maintenance. It typically requires some work to get it to shoot it's best. It is not a 'convenient' rifle, if that makes any sense.

I never had any interest in the AR-10 platform... until I was asked to build one for my TaeKwon-Do instructor. When I came out the other end, with a 16" barreled Aero set up for hog shooting, I was impressed with it... and now I want one. The AR vs the M1a is an apples vs lugnuts comparison... they are two vastly different rifles. As with any AR platform, flexibility, adaptability, the ability to modify it is it's strength... and ease of use.

As far as carrying an M14 into combat... I would rather have an AR, and doubly so if we are talking .308. The M14's complexity is one of it's weaknesses, IMHO. If you are talking door kicking... even with the choice of a Socom16... I'd still take the AR unless the absolute power of the .308 was necessary. This is also beside the standard argument of 5.56mm vs 7.62mm, which is, again, a mission parameter, not an absolute.
 
DustyGmt said:
I bought my M1A scout probably a shade under a decade ago now, the cast reciever wasnt even a consideration at the time I bought it as it was an impulse buy but I remember a company making M1A's with forged receivers around that time, I believe it was Fulton Armory? Does that sound right, are they still around. I am pretty sure the name started with an F and were supposed to be great quality if you wanted a forged reciever.
Click to expand...
They are around, but their receivers are cast, not forged. I have no idea if that actually matters. https://www.fulton-armory.com/m14-receivers.aspx
 
cfullgraf said:
To disagree with the Ordinance department experts, I do not feel a single rifle platform can fit every need.
Click to expand...
Ordnance (no "i") agrees with you. General issue is M4/M16 in 5.56nato; SAW is to be a 6.8; GMG in 7.62nato (this has an asterisk as the Marines have decided to go with near-universal issue of the IIAW-- SAW-lite--in 5.56nato).

Modern military necessity requires more target discrimination than in times past. So, actual combat ranges are significantly less than 400m. And, the military never wants individual combat. There's support at every level--the rest of the Squad, the rest of the Platoon, the Company, and so on.
 
greyling22 said:
sure they go bang and the 308 is no slouch. BUT they're heavy, expensive, inaccurate, don't take optics well due to stock design, the mags are a little finnicky to insert: lets call it what it is: an update to an 80 year old design. It's not in my top 35 semi-auto's I'd want to take to war, but it's a semi auto 308, it will work in a pinch.
Click to expand...

A lot of things are subjective...

10-boot-camp-obstacle-jump-rifle.jpg
​
If you can run it well, it'll still put the work in place.




GR
​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Battle Rifles (SOCOM, HK91, M14)
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
Stevie-Ray
Stevie-Ray
R
  • Locked
308 battle rifle for near and far?m1a?DPMS?POF?
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
1stmarine
1stmarine
Q
  • Locked
Springfield M1A standard vs Socom 16
Replies
11
Views
9K
Gunfighter123
G
A
  • Locked
Should I get another M1A?
Replies
16
Views
872
Andrewsky
A
R
  • Locked
AAHHHH!!!! Decisions decisions AR15,FAL,or M1A
Replies
11
Views
441
AndyC
A
Back
Top