Upgrade from AR to M1A?

F

frontlander

New member
Howdy fellas. Posting a few replies concerning battle rifles over the last few weeks got me to thinking about the pre-ban flattop Colt AR-15 that resides in my safe. I bought it on a whim a few years ago before the NICS system was implemented. I've never had too much enthusiasm for the .223 cartridge as anything more than a decent varmint round. I do however like the ergonomics of the rifle and the fact that it looks "evil" and certain people don't want us to have one. I have half a notion to sell the AR and pick up a M1A from Springfield. I like the .308 round and its classic lines. I have also heard good things about accuracy and reliability. I hate to start a "Ford vs. Chevy" kind of argument, but I could use a nudge in the right direction.

P.S. I'd like to sell my Glock 9mm and get a 1911 .45, too.
My wife tells me I'm going "retro".
 
Keep the AR, save up and buy an M1A. They aren't going anywhere, but if you sell that preban AR you won't be buying another for what you have into it.
 
With the M1A, brace yourself for mag costs.

With the AR10, brace yourself for CHRONIC EVIL mag costs.


Battler.
 
Don't sell either of those guns!

Keep the AR, save up for an M1A. Don't sell your 9mm, save up and get a .45. You will only regret it later. You ahve a gun safe, keep them in there where they are safe. Don't let them out where they will get scared and lonely in a new environment. Don't cast away your kids! Ok, I am done being psycho, but seriously, don't sell either of those guns, they could come in handy later.

I love my M1A, but I wouldn't mind having an AR too. I love my Glock 27, but that is why I have a Colt 1911 and a Taurus 9mm too. Who says you can't have enough guns? That is if I owned guns. These are only if I was not a felon and prohibited from buying arms, but I do have two arms and don't need anymore. ;)
 
My brother got a Springfield Match M1A last year to replace his AR15 as his hi-power rifle competition rifle and his experience leads me to believe that M1A can be very accurate but will take a lot of money and/or luck to shoot as accurate at accurate AR15. In all he has spent about $3000 on the M1A to shoot 2" while his $800 AR15 shot 2" out of the box. In terms of reliability they were both excellent.
 
All my time in the Army I used an M-16. Never did have much good to say about the .223, just not my preference. After I got out I bought an M1A "Brush gun". Yes, it was more expensive than an AR15, but I would do it again, I like my .30 cals.
If you want a M1A by all means save and get you one. Keep the AR15 for the little lady in your life.
 
I agree with keeping your AR15 and 9mm. It is often difficult to get good prices from them on the quick. At the very least they are good chick guns. Donate them to your wife. If you got your pre-ban a few years ago you might be amazed at how much the go for now. My SP1 which I bought for $425 several years ago is now worth close to a million-billion dollars. Yeah, I was shocked too. ;)

My bias is with the FAL. $5 mags, good accuracy, and reliability are plusses. If you have competition in mind the FAL would be a problem, of course.

My bias is also with .308. I think many, many more of us should go with it, in whatever rifle, rather than the .223.

Rick
 
Just say NO!

But make sure you understand my argument, as you didn't provide specifics on the type of shooting you're likely to do.

1. The AR-15 is less expensive to maintain in terms of parts costs, parts AVAILABILITY, magazine costs, and ammo costs.

2. The AR-15 with proper ammo can handle any reasonable range. If you want to shoot out past 400 yards, go with the .308 (but not necessarily the M1A).

3. The .223 is effective against varmints and folks (defense only, of course). If you feel you "need" the heavier .308 round, I'd recommend taking a carbine course and learning exactly how to use that .223 to its maximum effectiveness. I believe that practice to become a better shooter can mean you don't need the crutch of a heavier round.

Finally, if you're thinking about the M1A simply because it's pretty or historical or because you just plain like it, then save up and buy one. If, on the other hand, you believe that it's a superior choice over the AR-15, then I'd challenge you to consider if it's the actual rifle, or the lighter round that you're questioning. You simply won't get the accuracy out of the M1A that you will with the AR-10 or a bolt gun. If you aren't worried about precision shooting, but still want the .308, I'd recommend looking into the the FAL.
 
"The crutch of the heavier round"

??

Or crutch of ligher rifle/lighter ammo/more shots/lower recoil with the 223? :)

Sorry. Even with an MOA rifle you (especially under stress) may not be able to hit the exact portion of the heart ventricle you wish to aim at, and even if you could you would have to know which phase of heart-beat your target is in.

223 in combat: Probably powerful enough, even a hit of quality that insufficient to put venison on the table may be enough for your target to decide to lie down play dead and wait for his trip home/purple heart equivalent.


However, I don't think you should sell your gun. Any new gun can have bugs in it, if (I assume) your 223 works keep it at LEAST until you find out your new baby works okay; but preferably forever. Even "postbans" will get more expensive after subsequent legislation (remember even prebans are crippled M16s). And rapid-firing a zero-recoil AR15 (despite the fact that one good hit with a RIFLE round would do the same job as over-kill with a volley of 223) is a blast.


I DO think a lot of people talking about the power of the 223 are talking about a few different guns.

The heavy wounding/keyholing bullet gets largely sacrificed when going to heavier bullets/higher rate of twist that improve accuracy and tactical penetration.

The ultra-accurate 1000 yard AR15s? Yeah, using heavy bullets that don't fit in the magazine.


The 308 is less dependent on bullet type (assuming you stay within the bullet weight/pressure range for mil-pattern rifles) to do damage and punch through things. Noone ever had to make excuses for the 308 that hits its target.


The AR10? Admittedly I've never tried one. As a "combat" weapon you would want a bunch of mags - and they are expensive and a hassle to get. I would also have to question the reliability of mags modified for one gun from another. I've seen posts of the AR10 jamming with mil. ammo; granted this ammo is all over the place in quality but what you may be able to get in the future may vary in tolerances.

If you DO get an AR10 you'll have to get a postban (excluding old stoner guns that are smiliar) - muzzle flash can suck at night, and render a load that you otherwise like too bright at dusk. Try to get one without a brake if possible, or find a way to "block off" the brake - a "combat" gun needs to be able to be fired without earplugs without deafening the guy next to you.


Battler.
 
The reasons for my switching to the .308: more powerful round. I live in a rural area. Twenty miles from the nearest population center. I'd like to have a rifle that could travel the ranch with me and be able to handle any task (defense, hunting, varminting) I just have trouble trusting the .223. I have no problem trusting the .308. I've shot animals and seen animals shot with a .308 and .30-06. I know what it can do. I've shot ground squirrels with the AR. It does a fine job. But a .308 can be a fine varmint round with proper loading. Can the .223 be a deer round? I will probably keep the AR and save for a semi-auto .308. I had chosen the M1A because: it is made in America, my father carried an M14 in the Army in the mid-60s and regarded it highly, it has been proven highly accurate in competition, and it looks fairly benign in the gun rack. Am I wrong? I was under the impression that the M1A was considered an accurate rifle. I have no beef with the FALs or AR-10s. They sound like great rifles. I'm just ready for some solid American made wood and steel. Thanks for all the advice.
 
What kind of problems does the FAL present for competition? It seems to me that I've seen quality FAL's for less than quality Garands or M1A's go for, but I used to think the same thing about Garands until some kind soul pointed out that I was looking at parts guns with crappy recievers.

So what's the problem with the FAL? I've been thinking I'd like to have one someday, though not for competition so it may not matter.
 
$3,000 for 2 MOA???

There are only a few possible reasons for this:

1. Incompetent rifle builder

2. Incompetent ammo maker

3. Incompetent rifle operator

4. Serious sighting mechanical failures (floppy front sight--I've seen it more than once!); or

5. Shooting in wind that's way too variable, perhaps even leaving the ammo in the sun to cook up in temperature as you fire the string. See #3 above.

Your friend's M1A has a real problem. I'll cure #1, #2 and #4 for $750. If I don't succeed, I'll refund the money buy the rifle for $750, the true pre-ban/panic price and what the machine should still sell for in its PC configuration.

No, I don't expect anyone to take up this offer. I'm just grumpy today about M1A pricing, including parts & mags.
 
Keep your guns, buy as you feel the need.

If you want an M1A, then go ahead and buy it, don't feel guilty about it.

And if you like, buy the FAL too.

Actually, If I wasn't going to shoot in matches, I'd buy the FAL first. Buy the M1A later.

Why FAL: Cheaper mags, bans on imported gun/parts.

The M1A is on a downhill slide (for match shooters), it looks like they are switching to the AR-15, so you might be able to buy a good USED one.

Don't get me wrong, I own FALs and M1As, I got more guns than time, to go to the range. So, bottom line is........."BE HAPPY."

Aloha, Mark
 
Never, ever, sell a firearm.
Just purchase more of them.
I would suggest the MIA, and the Stoner SR25, then fill out your AR15 family with a few carbines and 24" CAR..

Work will set you free....
 
"The M1A is on a downhill slide (for match shooters), it looks like they are switching to the AR-15, so you might be able to buy a good USED one."

I have heard this many times, however I have never seen cheap prices for used M1A match rifles.

There are several passages about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56 NATO round in the book "Blackhawk Down". This was in combat situations. Also there is a book by a Marine in Vietnam who was in the field when the M14's where taken and the M-16's given to the troops. They were not happy. And these were Marine rifleman. I think they should know.

I have a friend who shoots his AR often and well. I wouldn't hesitate to have him alongside in a SHTF situation. He likes to practice double taps with his AR. I joke with him about my M14S not needing 2 rounds to get the job done.

I have a Polytech M14S upgraded by Smith Enterprises along with about 15 mags. 7.62 milsurp ammo is so cheap now I have about 5000 rds on hand. It will do things with penetration that the AR owner can't even dream about.

Either one will do the job on a battlefield most of the time. IMHO, the 7.62 does it better and at longer range. It also is a more capable against vehicles and barriers. The tradeoff is that 5.56 has much less recoil and the ammo weighs less so you can carry more. Accuracy is close to the same.
 
>>There are several passages about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56 NATO round in the book "Blackhawk Down". This was in combat situations.<<

And those passages are also not very accurate, if you read the whole book. The author has one of the troops voice the complaint about how the SS109 keeps "zipping" through the Somalians ineffectively, but elsewhere in the book it is made clear that the 7.62x51 rounds from the M60s were ALSO having little if any effect, and that no matter what the Somalians were shot with, they were taking several hits to go down. The most likely explanation is that the targets were very thin and wearing very baggy clothes and what the Rangers thought were solid body hits were simply missing and hitting only clothing or were hitting at the edges and not doing enough damage to stop the agressors, who were also known to chew a narcotic substance habitually.

>>Also there is a book by a Marine in Vietnam who was in the field when the M14's where taken and the M-16's given to the troops. They were not happy. And these were Marine rifleman. I think they should know<<

Yet VietNam combat veterans who trained me spoke very highly of their experiences with the M16. So I guess that doesn't prove much either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top