M1A Barrel Length

ace4059 · #1 07-11-11, 06:14

I have gotten the urge to buy an M1A. I have looked through the M14 pic thread and I like the looks of the gun. I do not own a 7.62 x 51 so I thought this would be a nice one to have. I own plenty of AR's and AK's, so I would like to have a "full powered" round.

I am planning on mounting a scope on this M1A. I will have to add a scope mount to it because I want the scope mounted farther back. I do not like the "scout" scopes mounted on the rifle. I have an AK that has a red dot mounted on a quad hand rail, and to me, that is too far forward and I don't like how it balances. So I pretty much have my mind made up where I will mount the scope over the chamber.

What I am having trouble on deciding is the 18" barrel or the 20" barrel. I have read several threads and it takes a 20" barrel for the powder to completely burn. But with the 18" barrel there is minimal loss of velocity (75 fps -150 fps) when compared to the 22" barrel.
The reason I cannot decide is because I like the looks of the 22" barrel if I am going to put the scope of the rifle, but I don't know how maneuverable it will be. I think the 18" will be easier to drag around. The 22" just looks too big and bulky. I dont like the 16" barrel because it looks too short. I am thinking that with the scope the 18" may look short.
Is either rifle "front" heavy? And how well does it balance out?

Reagans Rascals · #2 07-11-11, 08:18

Do you plan to suppress?

TOrrock · #3 07-11-11, 10:05

It sounds like you are more concerned with the cosmetics of it than the performance.

In that case, go with what looks best for you.

Different · #4 07-11-11, 12:45

A barrel 18.5 " in length is sufficient to allow complete combustion of the powder for M80 ball ammunition.

The SA, Inc. M1A Scout Squad has an 18 " barrel. Another option is to have a M14 gunsmith install a 18.5 " Criterion barrel on your receiver.

If the scope is mounted over the receiver, the rifle will not be front heavy. This assumes the rifle wears a traditional style stock. The metal chassis stocks make the rifle front end heavy.

If you haven't checked prices yet, note that the M14/M1A will likely cost more than your AR-15 or AK pattern rifles and carbines.

rojocorsa · #5 07-11-11, 13:08

Also, keep in mind that your optic will sit high, you'd need a riser.

ryr8828 · #6 07-11-11, 13:16

Like you I decided I just had to have an M1A. I got the standard 22". I knew I wasn't going to be dragging it through the brush so it didn't matter. It's a good rifle, a copy of something historical, but the safety design sucks and optics mounting is a pain in the ass. That's ok because I just bought it to ring some steel or punch paper every now and then, and also just to have it. Both of my dpms .308's are more accurate and I have less money in each of them.

I don't think of my m1a as front heavy. I have a 4x-16x scope on it just because I already had the scope laying around. Putting a scope on it negates the ability to load it with stripper clips in two ways, the scope is in the way for one and you also have to remove the stripper clip guide to install the scope mount. That's not a big deal to me I wouldn't use the stripper clips any how.

Any how my opinion is if you want to beat around the brush with it there are better options, if you want 1 moa or better accuracy there are better options and for a military style rifle both of those options would be an ar style .308 rifle. But if you just want an m1a to shoot I'd go with the 22" barrel. I think it balances fine and just looks more m1a to me than any other shortened barrel variant.

ryr8828 · #7 07-11-11, 13:20

The previous poster reminded me of the cheekrest you have to have with a scope, I got a strap on padded one so there's another $50 and something else to snag on stuff in the brush.

ace4059 · #8 07-13-11, 02:31

I might get a suppressor later on. I am just looking at getting a M1a because of its history and I like the "old" look it has. I looked at the SOCOM model with the 16" barrel and I though it looked ridiculous. I do not want this for room clearing. If I want to shoot a smaller/compact gun I will just use an AR or AK. I am waiting for my tax stamps so I can get an 11.5" upper and pick up my AAC 5.56 suppressor. It maybe a year or 2 before I get a .308 suppressor. So As of right now I would not put a can on a M1A if I got it.

I like both the 18" and 22" barrel. I am thinking about a scope on the 22" or an aimpoint or low powered scope on the 18" scout. I am not sure which one would suit me best. On one of my ak's, I have the Midwest quad handrail. I mounted an aimpoint on it and I thought it made the AK very front heavy. The mount I have it on, makes it a little high up for my taste. I have another AK and I have the scope rail that mounts the scope over the receiver. I took it off because I thought it makes the scope too high with the Warsaw buttstock. I think it feels more natural with the NATO buttstock and the scope.
So, I am afraid the scope would be too high up on the 22" length (mounted over the receiver), and the 18" would be too front heavy with the scout setup (with it mounted over the barrel).

Loaded vs. standard.
The loaded is actually going to cost me less. I noticed the loaded M1A is listed with a medium weight barrel. I am assuming the standard has a lighter weight barrel. So will the "loaded" gun be more front heavy with the medium weight barrel. I have also heard a few people say the scout mount over the barrel isn't a good idea, and the factory mount is cheap and doesn't work well and would need to be upgraded to a better mount.

I did notice that the M1A cost a good penny. Most places want $1500-$1800 for one. I found a store that gives LEO discounts and the loaded version would be about $1300. I have heard several people on the internet say these guns are a money pit.

I guess I need to see a M1A in person so I can make up my mind. Too bad the gun stores around here do not have one in stock.

I guess it boils down to what I will be using this gun for as to which one I should get. Like I said earlier, I dont have a .308 so that is one of the reasons I am wanting a m1a. I also want something for longer ranges 600-800 yds, that would be a good target gun and something that I could take hunting. I know I could buy a nice bolt action bench rest/Target shooting .308 for the same price, but something is catching my eye with the M1A. I just like to do my research before dropping $1300 on a gun.

Different · #9 07-13-11, 08:05

The standard model M1A has a standard (lightweight) profile barrel. The barrel will either be a chromium plated USGI barrel or an unlined commercial barrel.

Generally speaking, if the scope has an objective lens of 42 mm or less you can use low height rings with a three point receiver scope mount (Sadlak, Smith Enterprise, Brookfield, etc.). A velco strap cheek rest will usually provide sufficient comb height for the shooter.

The added weight of a medium barrel will be offset by an optical scope mounted over the receiver as far as how the rifle will balance. A medium weight barrel will add about one pound to the rifle, give or take a few ounce depending on the barrel maker.

Ark1443 · #10 07-13-11, 10:38

I went with the standard model myself. 22" barrel, black synthetic stock. I do love this gun. With some grease it'll bang away with no problems.

I originally wanted a 18" barrel, but back then when I knew far less from what I know now about firearms (and even now I've only scratched the surface), I was swayed into getting the 22" barrel by my grandfather who swears by having the most power out of the longer barrel.

If I had to do it over again I'd go for the 18" scout. I may in time sell this gun and try to replace with a SCAR 17s, or perhaps try to get a better model of the M1A in the future.

ace4059 · #11 07-13-11, 10:45

What type of groups do you get with the standard 22" barrel? I am leaning towards the loaded 22" . I would be happy with 1 moa groups. I was really wanting the black stock,but I don't know if I want to pay an extra 110 dollars for the black stock. I guess a green stock would be OK and I could get a duracoat paint job on it. Don't ask my why the black stock costs over 100 more than the green stock.

Ricardus · #12 07-13-11, 11:32

The M14 (M1A Springfield Armory not the original Gov. arsenal or armory but a commercial company) is a money pit.

If you want 1 moa go with the loaded version and put a scope on it - maybe. If you get the one with the shorter barrels, you will not get 1 moa.

It's the nature of the beast. The USAMTU spent tons of money (along with the Marine Corps) to make that "platform" shoot accurately enough for competition and military sniping. To keep that gun shooting accurately and consistently takes some amount of constant and expensive maintenance.

The Marine Corps had their asses handed to them in Service Rifle competition by the Army squads because the "Mouse Gun" roared (M16A2 configured for 2-600 yards and the 1000 yards using Match bullets) and consistently out shot those expensively tuned M14 rifles in the hands of superb marksmen. The Marines then started fielding their own M16A2s - a hard won lesson!

If you get an M14 custom made, it will cost you around $2500 - $4500 some of the newer forged parts like the bolt (the older, military contract, TRWs are expensive and difficult to come by) are having issues. Even some of the well known manufacturers of forged receivers and known to "make changes" on the geometry.

In fact one the best non-military, commercially forged receivers was made by the Communist Chinese (Poly Tech or Norinco). They used a superior type of ordnance steel (very hard on tooling) and heat treated it correctly - the Poly Techs were geometrically and dimensionally perfect. Why can't American makers do this as well - no one knows - too expensive?

I went through the agonizing process of trying to get one built by a member of a shrinking size of M14 armorers (civilian and military) - too much trouble and expense involved. Plus many of them are not very forthcoming with information on where to get parts and why you need to be very selective.

The M1A is a cast receiver - the earlier rifles from SA were rifles built with excellent TRW M14 parts - not anymore. There was a recent article about the military pulling out their old M14s and replacing the barrels and placing them in aluminum/steel chases - as a stop-gap measure for deployment to A-stan. They are getting sub-moa and once again it is a very expensive process that costs around $4000 and you do not have access to parts and the receivers are full-auto capable military rifles.

FWIW, IMHO, get an LMT MWS in .308 (16" SS or CM barrel) or look at the new ArmaLite AR10A4NM (20 inch match barrel, match sights, etc) in .308 - it is around $1700 and you will be much happier with either one of them.

Good luck!

Wiggity · #13 07-13-11, 12:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace4059

I might get a suppressor later on. I am just looking at getting a M1a because of its history and I like the "old" look it has. I looked at the SOCOM model with the 16" barrel and I though it looked ridiculous. I do not want this for room clearing. If I want to shoot a smaller/compact gun I will just use an AR or AK. I am waiting for my tax stamps so I can get an 11.5" upper and pick up my AAC 5.56 suppressor. It maybe a year or 2 before I get a .308 suppressor. So As of right now I would not put a can on a M1A if I got it.

I like both the 18" and 22" barrel. I am thinking about a scope on the 22" or an aimpoint or low powered scope on the 18" scout. I am not sure which one would suit me best. On one of my ak's, I have the Midwest quad handrail. I mounted an aimpoint on it and I thought it made the AK very front heavy. The mount I have it on, makes it a little high up for my taste. I have another AK and I have the scope rail that mounts the scope over the receiver. I took it off because I thought it makes the scope too high with the Warsaw buttstock. I think it feels more natural with the NATO buttstock and the scope.
So, I am afraid the scope would be too high up on the 22" length (mounted over the receiver), and the 18" would be too front heavy with the scout setup (with it mounted over the barrel).

OP based on this, I'd go with the 22" barrel. It sounds like you want a historically accurate battle rifle to mostly just mess around with.

If I got one, that would be my choice a I would probably use it for long range shooting and possibly competition.

ace4059 · #14 07-14-11, 01:49

OK, I have read lots the last few days about the M1a. Thanks for all the information everyone has posted so far. If I get one it will be the 22" barrel. After thinking why the M1A appeals to me, I came to the conclusion that I want an "old" historic battle rifle that has some history behind it. I want something that I can take to the range and have fun with it. So, I want it more for looks, form, and function rather than something that is cheaper or more accurate. If I wanted something with precession, then I would get a bolt action, and If I wanted a "room clearing/tactical" gun in .308, I would get the SCAR, or AR10. And I know I could probably get a better gun for cheaper.

So would most people recommend against this gun because It is a money pit? I was planning just buying the gun, 2 extra magazines, and maybe get a scope later on. I got the urge to get a gun that is a "full powered" battle rifle, that is fun to shoot, that is functional, and something that I will not have problems with. If it will not deliver that, then I dont want it. I am not expecting this to have a 6" group at 1000 yds. or a one holer at 100 yds.

So Is this gun considered a money pit because people buy it and want to make it a one hole shooting gun and they spend thousands of dollars trying to prefect it and tune it into a high precession gun? Or does it always have problems and parts breaking? I thought is was because of the first one, and I thought the Springfield would be the best M1A to pick. So, if I am not going to get what I want out of the M1A, please inform me.

wetidlerjr · #15 07-14-11, 05:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace4059

...So would most people recommend against this gun because It is a money pit? I was planning just buying the gun, 2 extra magazines, and maybe get a scope later on. I got the urge to get a gun that is a "full powered" battle rifle, that is fun to shoot, that is functional, and something that I will not have problems with. If it will not deliver that, then I dont want it. I am not expecting this to have a 6" group at 1000 yds. or a one holer at 100 yds... So, if I am not going to get what I want out of the M1A, please inform me.

Get what YOU want and ignore the naysayers that, apparently, ignored your reasons for wanting one. I picked up my SA M1A back in 2001 when USGI barrels were still the norm and over the next couple of years replaced all parts I could with USGI including the trigger group, OP rod, bolt and FH. I recently mounted it in a Troy MCS chassis because I wanted to update the platform to be more user friendly and I can revert it back to USGI form in an hour or two. I won't be winning (or shooting) at Camp Perry but I will be enjoying my M1A for many years to come.

ryr8828 · #16 07-14-11, 06:36

It will be fine out of the box.

diving dave · #17 07-14-11, 12:47

I have 2 Springers, one is a socom and the other a loaded. I havent had any issues with either rifle. The loaded will do a hair over MOA with Fed 168 match. Make sure you go with a good quality mount, the Springfield mount is a piece of crap. SEI or sadlak is a good choice. If you want a top notch rifle, take a look at LRB arms, they are pricey though. Good luck.

mass-diver · #18 07-14-11, 21:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace4059

So Is this gun considered a money pit because people buy it and want to make it a one hole shooting gun and they spend thousands of dollars trying to prefect it and tune it into a high precession gun? Or does it always have problems and parts breaking? I thought is was because of the first one, and I thought the Springfield would be the best M1A to pick. So, if I am not going to get what I want out of the M1A, please inform me.

There are a couple great M1A/M14 on here, be sure to read them.

An M1A out of the box will probably run fine (IME) provided you are just shooting causually. If there are problem SAI will fix it so now sweat there.

The cost issues come into play if:

1.) You want to make it super accurate. Parts and smith work are going to add up quick.

2.) You want to make it into a serious fighting gun. Lots of stuff to be replaced and again big bucks to spend

Given their great warranty, if you just want a plinker, you can't go wrong with SAI. Heck, my SOCOM was one of the most fun guns I've ever fired.