Unless you're doing an LRB M25, I'd go AR10 all the way and never look back.
I have and enjoy my M1A for what it is. But if I had to pick between the two for accuracy, or even hard use, I'd take a decent AR-10 any day. There's a reason the Army, even though it spent years of trying, could never quite successfully turn the M14 platform into a mass produced semi-auto sniper weapon. By contrast, off the shelf AR-10s perform to that level, and do so more cheaply. Of course, if I was just wanting to throw a loaded M1A in the safe, hard to say no to $1300. Tough decision.
"What would a $2,000 Geissele Super Duty do that a $500 PSA door buster on Black Friday couldn't do?" - Stopsign32v
If you wanted to curl up by the fire and stare longingly (for accuracy and good ergonomics) at the most over rated rifle of all time, DO IT. If you want to shoot often and try to win a contest against superior technology, which seems to be your case, NO.
If you got a deal like that on a M1A from the 1980s, which was essentially a GI gun on a commercial receiver that would be a different story. At least in that case you’d be getting a great deal in today’s market, for a high quality example of the most over rated rifle of all time.
That money could be much better spent on any number of budget AR10 type guns and yield superior results. M14 pattern guns are like boats-holes that you lose money in but enjoy less. It will never exceed an AR, no matter what you do to it.
Absolutely. Those GI parts guns still exist on the used market and can be had for great deals at times. They are certainly of much higher quality than many currently produced examples. That wasn’t my point though. If he were talking about an older version, that would at least have some collector value but would only be good as a nostalgic collector gun.
He wants to shoot matches where everyone else is shooting AR pattern guns. His originally mentioned M1A would leave him completely outgunned. That was the point I tried to make. I was trying to save him money.
For optics mounting alone I would go with the AR platform (and did). The superior accuracy and longevity are bonuses.
I'd say get the M1A. Then from there build it up as you wear out components. Best thing is that the M14 type rifles are standardized overall and there is a lot of aftermarket support for them. You don't need to unitize the gas system if you are shimming but some do. I would just pick up an excellent condition USGI fiberglass stock from Treeline which can be ordered with the upgraded kevlar re-enforcement. There's a point where you might decide to go with a heavier stock but for what little additional accuracy you might squeeze out of it- may or may not be worth it. I'd be surprised though if the rifle didn't shoot 1.5 MOA or better. Upgrade the spring guide to a Sadlak NM and get a Sadlak scope mount once you get your irons zeroed. I have two M1A's. One early five line Springfield with all TRW parts and an LRB M25 with a Saco-Lowell NM barrel. Both are now sitting in USGI fiberglass stocks which some don't like but I prefer them because they are very utilitarian.
Last edited by RetroRevolver77; 04-03-18 at 16:31.
I got my M1A because I thought it looked cool.
I have a standard, with nothing done to it, which was out with the boys a couple of weekends back. Once the iron sights were adjusted I shot steel at 100, 200 and 300 yards without issue. We decided to skip 400 and go to 5. I hit the silhouette on the first shot. But I admit, I tried three more times and gave up. We couldn't see where the shots were hitting due to foliage around the target and the steel was just a speck on top of the front sight.
Is this normal for a stock, non-match M1A? I think not. I do have a Super Match, gone over by a gunsmith, and scoped it will shoot 1/2 MOA or less all day.
"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Bookmarks