View Full Version : Which .308 gun fits my "wants".
I am in the market for a new .308. I am wanting a main battle rifle because I think they are a dieing breed and I think it would be neet to own a part of history. So I have been seriously looking into a new loaded Springfield M1a with the 22" barrel. I like the traditional look, the history behind this gun, and I have a desire to get this gun just for fun range use. This thread kind of ties into my other one asking about the barrel size on the M1a. I have decided that I want to get away from the AR and AK platform. The requirements that I am looking for is a semi-auto, reliable gun that does not malfunction and it does not have to be highly accurate (1.5 MOA or less). I know the AR10 and a bolt action will be more accurate than the M1A, but I really do not need another bolt action or AR type of gun.
I keep going back and forth between the M1A and the FNAR. I have a budget of $1400, which both fall into this range.
My only problems with the M1A is the lack of accuracy and mounting a scope. I keep reading that the M1A is only 2-4 MOA and that is mainly what scares me off from buying it. I will not add anything else to this gun nor tie up money into it for accuracy. Basically it will be an out of the box gun and I will later add a scope. My only other concern is the scope mount and the check weld, or lack of a check weld.
Second I did not know if the FNAR fits my "wants" a little better. I have read that it is more accurate than the M1A, but it has not been proven like the M1A. It dose not seem as if the FNAR is very popular and I do not know about the quality. I am sure it is good quality since it is made by FN, but what about the longevity of it? It seems more of the tactical gun and I was wanting a traditional gun.
I really dont need a .308 semi-auto, it is just a want. I am about 90% sure of the M1A, but I didnt know if the FNAR would be better as in quality, accuracy, and investment. I want something that will serve me well and hold its value. The accuracy of the M1a is just what scares me. Most people say its a money pit to tune that gun into an accurate rifle. Anyone know of something else that I may look into.
I looked at Keltec's 308 but Im not sure about the quality, and a G3, but I just wasn't impressed
Littlelebowski
07-16-11, 07:12
SCAR H. The M1 is a money pit.
SCAR H. The M1 is a money pit.
How are they money pits? Just because of the old age? I picked up two Granads from CMP and had thought about converting one of them to .308. If it's a money pit, I'll probably hold off. Just wanting to get your thoughts.
Let me just add a few things. The reason I currently do not want a SCAR is because I feel as if they have not been on the market long enough to short their reliability and I would want FN to work out the "bugs" if any. I have just learned not to buy anything new unless it has been on the market for a few years. But yes I will get one later one, but I dont want to spend the $2500+ right now.
I do not want an AR or AK rifle because I have several and I was wanting something different. I am getting an SBR, and that will be my AR platform toy. I was wanting something more traditional.
Kind of the same reason I dont want a bolt action. Yes they are more accurate, but I have several hunting and target guns, ranging from .223, 7mm mag, to .300 WSM. I use the 223 and 7 mag for target. I like to use the.223 for 400 yds and the 7 mag out to 800 yds.
I would like a semi auto .308 that will hit a paper plate at around 400-600 yds. I figured the 308 because it would kick less than my larger caliber guns that I use for long range. I would just use this for more or less medium range and "just for fun/range shooting".
The M1 is a money pit.
Thats what I am afraid of. Some say they shoot 1.5 MOA or less out of the box, others say its 4 MOA out of the box. I have read several people say you spend an extra $2000 on mods for accuracy and you are lucky if you get 1 moa.
Littlelebowski
07-16-11, 07:43
Thats what I am afraid of. Some say they shoot 1.5 MOA or less out of the box, others say its 4 MOA out of the box. I have read several people say you spend an extra $2000 on mods for accuracy and you are lucky if you get 1 moa.
That's exactly it. It will never be as accurate as a cheaper 308 AR nor as reliable as the FAL or the SCAR H. With the introduction of the LaRue OBR that won the International Sniper Championship at Fort Benning, the light weight LaRue PredaTAR, and the UK military issue sniper rifle LMT MWS, I seriously cannot fathom why anyone would choose an M1.
Crow Hunter
07-16-11, 08:00
Let me just add a few things. The reason I currently do not want a SCAR is because I feel as if they have not been on the market long enough to short their reliability and I would want FN to work out the "bugs" if any. I have just learned not to buy anything new unless it has been on the market for a few years. But yes I will get one later one, but I dont want to spend the $2500+ right now.
I do not want an AR or AK rifle because I have several and I was wanting something different. I am getting an SBR, and that will be my AR platform toy. I was wanting something more traditional.
Kind of the same reason I dont want a bolt action. Yes they are more accurate, but I have several hunting and target guns, ranging from .223, 7mm mag, to .300 WSM. I use the 223 and 7 mag for target. I like to use the.223 for 400 yds and the 7 mag out to 800 yds.
I would like a semi auto .308 that will hit a paper plate at around 400-600 yds. I figured the 308 because it would kick less than my larger caliber guns that I use for long range. I would just use this for more or less medium range and "just for fun/range shooting".
A paper plate at 600? What is a paper plate diameter? Like 8" or so?
Can YOU shoot that well? I can't.
If you are talking about a fun gun for the range, the M1A with iron sights is alot of fun.
But like LL says it will turn into a money pit if you want to get it accurate. A large portion of them seem to shoot like an AK out of the box and can be extremely bad about wandering zeros or at least that has been my experience with them. I had 1 and my brother has at least 4 on my last count.
They are fun to shoot though, if that is your primary concern.
If accuracy is, don't look at the M1A. If durability is, don't look at the M1A unless you have access to alot of USGI parts. If you want to mount a scope, don't look at the M1A. It can be done, but it will be expensive.
I haven't fired a Scar 17 but I have held one. I have fired the 16 quite a bit and I like it, and I assume that most everything carries over to the larger gun.
The only other gun that I have fired in .308 (that wasn't a bolt) was a DPMS that my brother had. Other than a bad extractor that wouldn't pivot, it was okay to shoot.
I have never even picked up a FNAR so no help there.
If you are wanting to spend a lot of time shooting at the 400-600 yard range with optics, you will get alot more bang for your buck out of a bolt gun. A good accurate (non AR) .308 semi is going to run more than your $1,400 budget in my experience.
On of the reasons I went with the SCAR 17 was precisely that they've tested and worked things out in the DoD program it came from. You're going to have a hard time finding a semi .308 that is as soft shooting and reliable.
Is it perfect? Heck no. Mags are harder to find than a backstage pass to see the Biebs. I'm still waiting on a backorder I placed in May and haven't paid scalper prices on Gunbroker, since it's not my only defensive rifle. The stock trigger is crunchy and awful, and the rail system is awfully short because otherwise the quick change barrel system (not yet available to the common person, if ever) won't work with a longer forend.
I bought it because it's different than my AR and my AK, and it is hands down the lightest and most easy to handle military derivative .308 out there right now. The Larue PredatAR in .308 is another excellent choice if you don't mind another AR...it takes PMAGs, and comes with an excellent Geissele trigger from the factory, but it's another AR.
What are your accuracy requirements and what kind of shooting are you typically doing?
Edited to add.....a "main battle rifle", such as the M14, FN FAL, HK G3, Beretta BM-59, original Armalite AR-10, are going to be about equal when it comes to practical accuracy.......2"-4" groups are typical.
If you want a DMR type rifle, you can make some upgrades to any of those existing weapons, but don't expect the standard variants to be match grade rifles.
MountainRaven
07-16-11, 14:53
Based on your budget, the FAL is the best choice.
Based on your requirements (non-AR, accurate, easy scope mounting, reliable), the SCAR 17S is the best choice.
(In my humble opinion.)
Take a look at the DSA Imbel 58 rifle. Nice FAL for the money.
mkmckinley
07-16-11, 20:20
Let me just add a few things. The reason I currently do not want a SCAR is because I feel as if they have not been on the market long enough to short their reliability and I would want FN to work out the "bugs" if any. I have just learned not to buy anything new unless it has been on the market for a few years
The DoD has been testing and revising it for, what, like six years or more? I don't think there has been a modern assault/battle rifle desigthat with more end-user feedback. I beat the shit out of one in training and on deployment with no problems. If you're looking for a semi auto 7.62 that can bang plates at 600m the Mk 17 is the best option.
If you want something reliable, inexpensive, shootable and with a lot of history behind it consider a CMP Garand.
Ferris2son
07-16-11, 23:15
Of the rifles mentioned, I own"
Imbel DSA FAL-Heavy, not very accurate, but easy to get parts for.
SA M1A Loaded-Heavy, accurate but optics are hard(expensive) to mount, Loaded has good trigger.
FN FNAR-Flexible ergos, accurate, good trigger, total pain to strip and clean. Can't be field stripped. Not a combat rifle.
FN SCAR 17-Combat trigger is hit and miss, mags are non-existant, otherwise a very good battle rifle. Lite, flexible and accurate.
The SCAR is the last one I'd sell.
I say SCAR 17 and call it a day. I ran mine at a short range carbine match yesterday. I was the only guy running a .308. I didn't have any decent way to carry a reload, so I reloaded from a dump pouch.
I went a little slow on my runs to demo the stages to other shooters, but still I do not feal this heavy caliber held me back in the least. The 17 is very shootible in that type of event. I placed well with it.
The 17 is a battle rifle first and foremost. It is capable of great accuracy, but something I have noticed with the 15ish different loads I've tried in it, it shoots nothing "bad". Some loads like the 155 gr TAP are literally on par with some bolt guns, but even surplus junk is still very capable of getting hit after hit on 10x12 steel plates at 500 yards. The 17 shines as a heavy caliber option for a reliable, accurate, lightweight modern fighting rifle, just as much at home at the close up work as an M4 with a little training.
If you want to play DM or Sniper, buy a well built precision SR25 type rifle or wait on the MK20. I don't mean this in a negative way, but it sounds like you yourself are already aware of the negatives of the M1A, but are probably smitten by the lore/romanticism of the M1A. Let it go, there are way too many BETTER modern options for your wants available now days, that can do what the M1A can do and drastically exceed it's capabilities. Not to mention, if there is another type of AW ban, what do you think will be worth more, a Springfield Armory M1A or an FN SCAR 17? Listen to the guys here, they won't steer you wrong, especially Lebo; he tells it like it is.
Are you looking at 7.62x51 or are you willing to look at other .308 weapons?
I have become intrigued with 7.62x35 that AAC has developed, it will fit my 5.56 lower without any change but the BCG.
I cant find any ammo that isn't subsonic, so I am not ready to buy a barrel or another upper for the caliber yet. When the non subsonic ammo is available at places like Ammoman or the Ammos Bros. in SOCal I will make the jump and go for that caliber. You have to understand my son and I go shooting at a range in the mountains behind LA and make the day of it. The last time we went there were 5 of us and we ran thru about 2500 rounds in four ar 15s and several handguns. That is typical of our range days.
How are they money pits? Just because of the old age? I picked up two Granads from CMP and had thought about converting one of them to .308. If it's a money pit, I'll probably hold off. Just wanting to get your thoughts.
Keep in mind that modifying such a gun ruins the collector's value, if this is important to you in anyway.
In a few years when the CMP runs out, they will probably be worth a pretty penny as well.
Just thought I'd mention this.
I guess the M1A is OK for a fun gun. OK, but expensive. I'd rather have an M-1 if it's just shits and giggles, but that's just me.
I've never heard the FNAR called a battle rifle.....
I've never heard the FNAR called a battle rifle.....
It's just a tactical-ized Browning BAR (the modern hunting semi).
I heard it can't even be field stripped and mags are very costly.
MountainRaven
07-17-11, 14:13
I have become intrigued with 7.62x35 that AAC has developed, it will fit my 5.56 lower without any change but the BCG.
I believe that the .300 AAC uses the exact same BCG. I believe the only thing that's different is the barrel.
My bad, it is only the barrel you change. I still want one when ammo becomes more available.
Your budget is limiting, but don't let anyone ever convince you an M1A isn't up to competing with an AR10 for accuracy. They are, but prepared to whip out the platinum card and know exactly what you are doing.
Inside your budget you have 2 choices in brand new M1a rifles . You have a std with the 22" barrel and a scout with a 18" barrel. I'd go with the scout myself given the two. Reason being they are a little more handy without loosing too much. It's a range toy anyway.
You might get lucky, but that isn't always the case. To improve it with little investment, I'd shim the gas cylinder, replace the std spring guide with a NM version, maybe a sadlak TiN piston for good measure, and send the trigger group to a guy by the name of Bill Springfield to clean it up. It is pretty cheap to have them things done and besides having the trigger done you could very well do it yourself with a couple cheap specialty tools. Them things will probably get you into the 1 MOA game providing the stock isn't too loose fitting. They normally aren't too bad.
As far as scoping it, that is where it gets expensive. No mater what you buy the scope can only be so low. You'll need a slight rise minimum to use it. The scout does have a forward rail for optics, but scopes with that much eye relief isn't all that. A lot of guys replace this rail with lower profile rail systems so they can co-witness their iron sights with a red dot. If it weren't using a receiver mounted scope, I'd have an Aimpoint T1 out front of a scout. It would be a badass little rifle packing plenty of punch.
There is ways to go about it. Eventually you do spend plenty, but besides an AR, the M1A is really a very diversed rifle for options. You're not limited with it. Work with it as budget allows and learn as you go.
the M14 platform would be my choice. the springfields are good but for a bit more, a fulton armory or 7.62mm firearms brand m14 would be a bit better.
one thing ost overlooked is the ammo, imo. if you shoot the cheapest surplus ball from whichever country its found, your accuracy will be somewhat lacking but still in the military requirements for the 3-4moa range. put some better quality ammo in it like some 168gr hpbt match ammo and the accuracy gets better. same with most any rifle. alot of people arent happy shooting m193 from the ARs but love them with the 77gr match ammo.
my 2 springfield rifles were a loaded walnut version and a synthetic scout. both shot 2-3moa with south african surplus ball ammo and id get between 1.5-2moa with 168gr reloads.
Don't let the accuracy of the M14 scare you off. On the average, it's one of the more accurate & consistent shooters of the class.
Accurizing an M14 does cost money but how accurate do you want it to be? If attempting to squeeze every bit of MOA for heavy season of competitive shooting, that could cost you a chunk of change. However, there are some minor tweaks that will tighten up the groups, improve consistency and even improve reliability without breaking the bank. Unitizing the gas block, glass bedding, tuning the op-rod along with a couple of other tweaks will give a solid shooting M14 that's hard to beat. Mounting optics is not impossible, but it is a pain.
If you want optics, the AR-10A4 is clearly the better choice. (I have no experience with the SCAR so I make no claims for it.) The FNAR is a good rifle but as a battle rifle, it's not as rugged and magazines are proprietary, expensive and a bit rare. Chances are, the AR10 will have a slight edge in accuracy over the M14 right out of the box.
Another excellent choice for a 308 battle rifle is the FN FAL or it's Commonwealth counterpart, the L1A1. The FALs I like best are the Steyr STG58 and the Para FAL
Gutshot John
07-26-11, 14:42
A DSArms FAL would fit within your stated budget and needs. It's accurate enough and otherwise is quite maintainable/customizable. Depending on your accuracy requirements it may not be sufficient. It's pedigree/history is at least as noteworthy as that of the M-14 but like the M-14 it's a heavy bitch.
The M14, as others have mentioned, is a money pit.
If coin is not a factor I'd consider the SCAR, OBR/PredatAR or LMT MWS.
The Dumb Gun Collector
07-26-11, 17:31
Try and find a springfield g3 or pre ban Sar.
Barring that a DSAis nice.
M14 types are too much drama in my experience. That being said, a nice running Springfield Scout is nice. If you can find one already sorted.
M1a isn't a money pit until you want to squeak out every once of potential, then it becomes expensive. An AK can't hold a candle to the M1A, a FAL will compete only so far. Putting optics on a FAL however is way worse than the options for the M1A. An AR10 is the best all around choice, but it is nice sometimes to be different.;)
Littlelebowski
07-27-11, 04:41
M1a isn't a money pit until you want to squeak out every once of potential, then it becomes expensive. An AK can't hold a candle to the M1A, a FAL will compete only so far. Putting optics on a FAL however is way worse than the options for the M1A. An AR10 is the best all around choice, but it is nice sometimes to be different.;)
You are exactly wrong. The FAL is easy to scope, doesn't have a cheek weld that involved applying your chin to the stock, and the scope mount doesn't interfere with cleaning nor malfunction clearing.
Why people continue to promote M1s in this day of sub .75 MOA factory $2k-ish .308 ARs is beyond me. Well, it's not beyond me but sometimes I like to pretend we are all rational and don't have emotional attachments to inanimate objects that obscure our facility for logical thought.
sometimes I like to pretend we are all rational and don't have emotional attachments to inanimate objects that obscure our facility for logical thought.
Now that is some sig line material right there. :lol:
You are exactly wrong. The FAL is easy to scope, doesn't have a cheek weld that involved applying your chin to the stock, and the scope mount doesn't interfere with cleaning nor malfunction clearing.
It's easier to scope a FAL than an M14, but the FAL mounts are notorious for having trouble with holding zero.
Why people continue to promote M1s in this day of sub .75 MOA factory $2k-ish .308 ARs is beyond me.
They also promote AKs, FALs and other designs. The M14 isn't perfect and it's virtues overstated, but it's still a good rifle.
Well, it's not beyond me but sometimes I like to pretend we are all rational and don't have emotional attachments to inanimate objects that obscure our facility for logical thought.
Oh the irony :)
Littlelebowski
07-27-11, 09:39
I've never heard a bad word nor experienced personally, a problem with the DSA FAL scope mount. Where are you hearing about these problems? I've been using the DSA mount for about 4 years. No problems so long as you use LocTite on the screws as recommended.
The M1 can be a good rifle. It's not AK47 reliable and SR25 accurate like the fanboys promote it to be and it is ridiculously, stupidly expensive to attempt make it as accurate as say....a LaRue OBR, a LaRue PredatAR (which is MUCH lighter), SCAR-H, or an LMT MWS.
I suppose if cheap 7.62x51mm can be had in abundance, it could be a fun 2-6MOA plinker/brush gun. I love my FAL but I don't let emotions cloud my thoughts on it. Too expensive to shoot and not accurate enough to shoot long range which are findings you can apply to the M1. If you want an accurate 7.62x51, neither the FAL or the M1 are rational choices given the lower cost and far greater mechanical accuracy of the SCAR-H and AR .308 variants.
Here is a DSA FAL I have been watching, seems a pretty good deal, considering it has both the DSA scope mount, and fore end, and the stock ones, it also has extra mags. Not a big fan of the camo, but hey there are allot of extras there, I also noticed, someone tossed the flat head screws and went with allen head on the scope mount.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=241486519
When I left the Marine Corps I looked at both the FN FAL and the M1A. In battle rifle form they both qualify very close they both have their pros and cons. For many reasons I just didn't like the FN FAL . I did however like the M1A. When I made that choice my goal was to take it as far as it could go. On this journey I've learned a lot and achieved what I set out to do. The FN FAL just can compete at this level. It was never meant to. Neither was the original M14, but it can. And that is why I like it. I made the right choice, for me, per my goals. As I look at my M21 in front of me, it represents $6500 worth of hard work and refinement. What makes this rifle so prohibitive is the cost in doing so, and consistency between rifles. Everything has to be just so. Little things most never even think of can be the difference between a good and outstanding rifle. I took in information from every source I could find, on every part. I used what was known to be true, used working theories from experts in the field and used my own judgement to source the parts. Then I decide just how to build it. I have a first rate gunsmith and both of us collaborated on just how it all should be fitted. End result is I have exactly what I wanted and more. I don't think you'll never see a FN FAL this accurate. With the right ammo and a bit of luck I'm laying down tight groups thought only achievable with a quality AR10 rifles. It is doable, but it's like it needs to become the most important thing in your life. You have to have a passion for it.
Knowing what I know now, if I were a 22yo kid again fresh out of the Marine Corps, I'd probably go with an AR10, knowing just how easy it is. However AR10s back then were something that were not really an option.
There is no right or wrong here, just preference and money.
SCAR 17. Only reason I'm holding off was mag availability and I found a 16 for $2100.
Rhino
I have a 16" DPMS LR-308 (7.62 NATO barrel marked) and about $1450 into it with the Nikon Prostaff 4-12x40 Mil-Dot Scope..
I know this isn't what you want..
http://executiveprotectionservice.us/forums/Nikon412.jpg
Me adjusting the scope for a 200 yard ZERO..
http://executiveprotectionservice.us/forums/200ydPic1.jpg
Shoots UNDER 2" groups at 200 yards with Hornady AMAX 168gr.. (measured 1 5/8")
http://executiveprotectionservice.us/forums/200ydPic2.jpg
Runs Geman MEN/DAG to Hornady Steel Ammo to Brown Bear with 0 issues at 600+ rounds thus far...
Runs the LR-20 Pmags for $20 each.. and most AR accessories can be swapped onto it..
If you want a .308 rifle that can be used as a field gun or a target gun with minimal work or extra money, you have two choices.
1. SCAR
2. KAC SR-25/LMT MWS
Springfield Inc M14s are aftermarket garbage and not made to the standards of a real military weapon.
If you want an M14 then you need to look at LRB or 7.62FA for the receiver and build it with USGI parts or buy a transferable M14.
SCAR 17. Only reason I'm holding off was mag availability and I found a 16 for $2100.
Rhino
I have both SCAR17 and MWS, without any mods out of the box the MWS beats the SCAR, better trigger, I found it more accurate, and mag availability. That said the Geissel trigger I installed in my 17 made a world of difference, now if mags would just become available. I have waaaaaaay more into my SCAR than my MWS and really it's only real benefit over my MWS is weight. If I were going for just one battle rifle it would be a MWS, the money saved can go towards ammo, optics, mags.
This is truth.
If you want a .308 rifle that can be used as a field gun or a target gun with minimal work or extra money, you have two choices.
1. SCAR
2. KAC SR-25/LMT MWS
Springfield Inc M14s are aftermarket garbage and not made to the standards of a real military weapon.
If you want an M14 then you need to look at LRB or 7.62FA for the receiver and build it with USGI parts or buy a transferable M14.
I put the 7.62 urge on hold for right now. I will eventually get a SCAR-H. I was just wanting the M1A as a plinker and for fun, but after seeing ammo prices the more I realized I wouldn't shoot it very often. So I am just going to hold off for now. Another reason I was wanting the M1A, was because I found a brand new loaded M1a for $1300 out the door and I thought it was too good to pass up. Eventually though, I may get an FAL, M1a, and SCAR. I try to keep all my guns to 5.56 because of the cheap ammo. Later when I can afford it then Ill merge into the 7.62 NATO guns.
Springfield Inc M14s are aftermarket garbage and not made to the standards of a real military weapon.
If you want an M14 then you need to look at LRB or 7.62FA for the receiver and build it with USGI parts or buy a transferable M14.
At one time SAI did build there rifles with USGI parts. Mine was such a rifle. Eventually USGI will run out. Most of SAI current commercial parts are not too bad.
Investment cast receivers vs forged isn't a huge deal. What is a huge deal is if it is machined right. Everyone has had flops, including LRB. There has been excellent "to die for" SAI receivers.
So no not the garbage as you make them out to be. You want to be critical, bring your US drawings, calipers and actually start measuring. Don't assume anything is or isn't top notch till you actually double check it.
I put the 7.62 urge on hold for right now. I will eventually get a SCAR-H. I was just wanting the M1A as a plinker and for fun, but after seeing ammo prices the more I realized I wouldn't shoot it very often. So I am just going to hold off for now. Another reason I was wanting the M1A, was because I found a brand new loaded M1a for $1300 out the door and I thought it was too good to pass up. Eventually though, I may get an FAL, M1a, and SCAR. I try to keep all my guns to 5.56 because of the cheap ammo. Later when I can afford it then Ill merge into the 7.62 NATO guns.
That was a good price for the loaded. If you were to get one look me up, I'll help you anyway I can if you need input or ideas.
The SCAR-H is a wicked little head turner. I fancy them to. Wouldn't mind having one myself.
I'm in the opposite boat. I have one 5.56 and the rest are 30cal somethings. It is a little more, but all the rifles can do a lot more than the little 5.56. I figure the added cost is justified. Besides if you are shooting MK318 mod 0 ammo, or MK262 Mod 1 which isn't all that cheap either, there isn't that big of a difference in cost.
That price range likely won't fetch that much accuracy in the .308 battle rifle range. The FNAR is really more of a precision rifle, and accessorizing it is expensive (magazines are $40-$50 each). They're accurate guns, and FN does very good stuff. The magazines are the stopping point in my mind.
I put the 7.62 urge on hold for right now. I will eventually get a SCAR-H. I was just wanting the M1A as a plinker and for fun, but after seeing ammo prices the more I realized I wouldn't shoot it very often. So I am just going to hold off for now. Another reason I was wanting the M1A, was because I found a brand new loaded M1a for $1300 out the door and I thought it was too good to pass up. Eventually though, I may get an FAL, M1a, and SCAR. I try to keep all my guns to 5.56 because of the cheap ammo. Later when I can afford it then Ill merge into the 7.62 NATO guns.
Good decision OP. I am sure you will make enough money in your lifetime to afford all 3. In fact, you will probably enjoy it more if you make yourself wait!
At one time SAI did build there rifles with USGI parts. Mine was such a rifle. Eventually USGI will run out. Most of SAI current commercial parts are not too bad.
Investment cast receivers vs forged isn't a huge deal. What is a huge deal is if it is machined right. Everyone has had flops, including LRB. There has been excellent "to die for" SAI receivers.
So no not the garbage as you make them out to be. You want to be critical, bring your US drawings, calipers and actually start measuring. Don't assume anything is or isn't top notch till you actually double check it.
The is no such thing made by Springfield Inc that is "to die for"
:bad:
Guys, let's rein it in on the M14 argument, ok?
Personally, I'd avoid a current SA production M1A as they are 99% commercial parts, and try to find one with as many USGI parts, particularly with a GI barrel, bolt, and oprod.
We can be adults and debate without venom in the arguments.
I put the 7.62 urge on hold for right now. I will eventually get a SCAR-H. I was just wanting the M1A as a plinker and for fun, but after seeing ammo prices the more I realized I wouldn't shoot it very often. So I am just going to hold off for now. Another reason I was wanting the M1A, was because I found a brand new loaded M1a for $1300 out the door and I thought it was too good to pass up. Eventually though, I may get an FAL, M1a, and SCAR. I try to keep all my guns to 5.56 because of the cheap ammo. Later when I can afford it then Ill merge into the 7.62 NATO guns.
I haven't priced the loaded M1A, but if it would retain value at that $1300 basis, you might buy it and learn on it, then sell it later when you find what you really want (LMT/SCAR). I think all you'd "have" to spend extra on it would be the optic mount. Just another 2 cents.
The is no such thing made by Springfield Inc that is "to die for"
:bad:
LOL, What I meant was, machined nicely within critical specs, and without major flaws. Even they get it right every so often. ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.