You're right, M1As are expensive. But recently I caught myself slobbering all over a FN SCAR 17 with a $2,999 price tag... Out of my ballpark. Inventory here has a Springfield and a Polytech. Both shoot great and are as accurate as I'd ever expect from the platform out to 500 yards or so - for me at least. M14/M1A has a great "feel" to it, justifying the expense to a certain degree.
Why are M1A's so expensive?
- Thread starter pwrstrkd
- Start date
- Status
Elkins45
Member
IMO one of the main reasons they are so expensive is because there is only a single supplier. It's the same reason an AR was $700 25 years ago-you had to buy them from Colt.
jolly roger
Member
Have indeed seen a cast receiver break on a Springfield. They made it good but Kinda freaked my friend out though. I'll stick with a Garand myself and 308 in either bolt or AR platform.
Narwhal
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2010
- Messages
- 261
They're not that expensive all things considered. I had an M1A, sold it. I now own 3 "M14's", 2 forged (LRB) and 1 billet machined from Smith Enterprise (Full auto).
An LRB will cost almost double what an M1A from Springfield runs. What you get is a receiver that's usually closer to USGI specifications, will often work more reliably with USGI parts, and have a longer service life. I have to say usually because I feel there is a lot of variance in the M1A's springfield puts out; some are better than others. To me, the extra features offered by the smaller M14 manufacturers are worth the extra cash, to many I can see how they would not be, especially if they have a "good" M1A. Unfortunately the M1A I used to own simply was not reliable and repeated trips back to springfield would not correct the failures to feed I was experiencing with that rifle.
An LRB will cost almost double what an M1A from Springfield runs. What you get is a receiver that's usually closer to USGI specifications, will often work more reliably with USGI parts, and have a longer service life. I have to say usually because I feel there is a lot of variance in the M1A's springfield puts out; some are better than others. To me, the extra features offered by the smaller M14 manufacturers are worth the extra cash, to many I can see how they would not be, especially if they have a "good" M1A. Unfortunately the M1A I used to own simply was not reliable and repeated trips back to springfield would not correct the failures to feed I was experiencing with that rifle.
Gtimothy
Member
I'll be first then...
I had to decide on whether I wanted an M1A or an AR.
I know, tough decision. I posted on THR for comments and, as expected, I got both pros and cons for both guns. When the dust settled, I bought another AR and paid over $1700 for it (including optics). I could have bought a loaded M1A for that price but that would have been it. I had to weigh the cost of accessories and ammo into the equation as well. I reload both the .223 and .308 so that wasn't the issue, it was the cost of supplies and the fact that I would have to buy magazines, scope mount, scope, etc for the M1A. I already had plenty of ammo and magazines for the AR. Simple economics.
I'll eventually get an M1A but for right now, I'm happy with my decision!
I had to decide on whether I wanted an M1A or an AR.
I know, tough decision. I posted on THR for comments and, as expected, I got both pros and cons for both guns. When the dust settled, I bought another AR and paid over $1700 for it (including optics). I could have bought a loaded M1A for that price but that would have been it. I had to weigh the cost of accessories and ammo into the equation as well. I reload both the .223 and .308 so that wasn't the issue, it was the cost of supplies and the fact that I would have to buy magazines, scope mount, scope, etc for the M1A. I already had plenty of ammo and magazines for the AR. Simple economics.I'll eventually get an M1A but for right now, I'm happy with my decision!
WALKERs210
Member
This is like a question about why a divorce cost so much- It's worth it". Nice thing about getting old is you don't have to squeeze pennies to put cloths and food for kids. Now if I see it and like it price don't really enter the picture.
Welding Rod
Member
I was shooting my Loaded today. I traded a gun dealer for it. It was used and built in "07. It looked like new. I put it in a GI fiberglass stock. The trigger is great and the rifle is plenty accurate. Real fun to shoot and perfect function.
jerkface11
Member
They also are not NEW.
jerkface11 said:
It doesn't change the underlying point that they're cheap. I'm not the one who brought up Swiss rifles.
Ultimately it seems that most people are spot on in that they're worth what people are willing to pay for them. I find that most American-manufactured weapons are expensive, I imagine that almost all modern freshly built civilian weapons are. In wartime at least there's a sudden massive demand for guns, and then shortly afterwards they're shed off, generally in favor of a new weapon's system, enabling the older rifles to enter the civilian market en masse. In this case the law of supply and demand is probably keeping production figures low, and the cost of machining and labor is raising prices even higher.
I personally would never buy any rifle for more than a thousand dollars. I just don't see the need to when there are a lot of great other beater guns that can achieve the same basic fire rate or comparable accuracy. It just comes down to exactly how much someone else wants the M1A rifle, for its looks, ergonomics, performance, cartridge, or lineage, or how it just fits their general idea of what they're looking for.
given how complicated it was to forge the receivers, and mill them out to proper specs I don't think modern makers would have the expertise, guidance or experience to do it right. I personally would not put any more faith in a modern forged receiver than a new cast receiver from Springfield inc. Now if John Garand were overseeing the process then I would change my mind. And also I don't think the new stock makers are doing any justice to the M1's and M1a either. The old workers at Springfield armory (the real armory) knew how to inlet these stocks for proper fitment and perfect function. Everything was quality controlled. The stocks were finished right Now you buy a set of wood and it comes with unmatching grain that needs work even if it's "drop in". To me these companies are cranking product out the door as fast as possible to get it sold, whether its good to go or not. Do the modern makers have all the QC gauges to ensure each receiver is milled to spec? Do they even know what to look for? Could they ensure parts interchangeability between LRB, fulton armory, smith etc? I doubt it, but thats exactly the standard adhered to among all M1 manufacturers during WWII.
greyling22
Member
Prince yamato or somebody, tell me more about this $400 polytech in canada and how can I get one in the states?
carbine85
Member
You can't get one, It's from China and they can't be imported.
greyling22
Member
Bummer. I was hoping there was a way to buy one in canada and import it to the us, they way you can do with some cars not sold in america.
medalguy
Member
Go to Canada, buy one, stick it in your pants, and limp back. 
Gordon
Member
Bought new in 1983 as a "National Match" and sent to Smiths in the early 90s to be built to National Match Specs cost $600 over the initial $600 1983 cost. It is just loosening up now to be very reliable and still puts Federal Gold Match into 3" at 200 yards with a NightForce instead of my IDF "souped up" ANPVS-2 that gives me flash backs of what I was doing in 1968-1970 ..... Priceless!!
Volume makes for cheaper pricing too. TRW's bid for M14s in 1961 was $72.84, adjusted for inflation that is something like $550 today. But that's building rifles in a plant specifically designed to do that, and the plant cost around $6 million in 1960 dollars. Not too many companies can afford to spend around $44 million today to set up a plant to build one gun unless they are going to sell a LOT of guns.
- Status
