PDA

View Full Version : 308 AR vs M1A


deepcore
October 5, 2010, 09:52 PM
Taking a poll 308 AR vs M1A.

RT
October 5, 2010, 10:12 PM
LMT

brmfan
October 5, 2010, 10:27 PM
POF

attila787
October 5, 2010, 10:40 PM
LWRC

zombieslayer
October 5, 2010, 11:07 PM
M1A. Its been proven. And it just has an appeal all its own.

FALacy
October 5, 2010, 11:10 PM
AR10 will be much more accurate. It is far easier to mount optics on. It has the most support. It has the best ergonomics and MUCH better controls. No soft extractors, no cast receivers. It is easier to field strip. It is easier to upgrade.

The M1A looks better.

goodspeed(TPF)
October 5, 2010, 11:30 PM
308-AR.

azredhawk44
October 5, 2010, 11:36 PM
The .308 AR is a better platform than the M1A/M14.

I say this as an M14 owner, and non-AR fanboi.

The M14 is a dead platform, unless you're willing to pay 3x the price for comparable service on the AR platform.

Smart money goes to the AR-10 and similar platforms.

Glen-Bob
October 6, 2010, 02:23 AM
I own both (AR-10T & Springfield M1A NM) and if I could only have one it would be the M1A. Yes, it is expensive to customize and requires some level of knowledge vice all the "bolt on" stuff any WalMart monkey can do to the AR-10.;) One is a platform to build upon the other is a proven rifle with years of experience behind it. Don't get me wrong I love them both. The AR for up close work and the M1A for long range. In battle I would much rather have the 7.62 vice 5.56.:rolleyes:

brmfan
October 6, 2010, 05:24 AM
FALacy: I'd be careful about making generalizations of M1A accuracy. My loaded model is 1 MOA all day long with iron sights & Black Hills 168's and I've seen many as good or better out of the box.

kraigwy
October 6, 2010, 07:24 AM
I say M1A. Maybe its harder to add gimmicks to the M1A, I suppose if you're a gimmick man the AR is for you, but I'm of the belief you can't gimmick your way to good shooting.

thesheepdog
October 6, 2010, 08:01 AM
POF, LMT or LWRC at stated above.

Much more adaptable.

SR420
October 6, 2010, 08:29 AM
Sub MOA SEI M14

The M14 platform is alive and kicking... additional new and improved military variants are coming soon.


I spent money on an AR-10... sold it and invested in another SEI M14... money spent smartly.



.

geetarman
October 6, 2010, 08:32 AM
What Kraig said.

I am fortunate to have one of each, but the M1A is just something else. Love that rifle.

Geetarman:D

Art Eatman
October 6, 2010, 08:33 AM
Looks to me like it's strictly personal preference as to the style/shape of the critter.

As far as comparative accuracy, for that sort of rifle it's relatively unimportant if you're not mostly a paper-puncher. Two MOA will deal quite effectively with either deer or people.

srkavanagh6621
October 6, 2010, 09:12 AM
I just purchased the M1A and love it! I got the scout model and its inch groups at 100 yards pretty easy! I dont own the AR in .308 but have only heard good things about it!

RLFD5415
October 6, 2010, 03:20 PM
I own two of each. All four are "match" grade. Here are my opinions:

The AR's are inherently more accurate. That said, there are no flies on my M14's.

The AR's are by far easier to maintain, modify, customize and work on.

Stocks, triggers, mounts etc. are more expensive for the M14 platform.

M14's are heavier, generally speaking.

For the range or hunting, I'll probably reach for an AR first - although I rarely hunt with gas guns. For a battle rifle, I'd reach for an M14 because it has proven ass-kicking capability.:D

kemassey
October 6, 2010, 04:32 PM
.308 AR

Katophract
October 6, 2010, 06:54 PM
Depends on what you want to use it for. Generally speaking, AR 10's are less reliable and M1a's are less acurate, though those are generalizations and not the rule. Personal usage and preference.

Jo6pak
October 6, 2010, 07:15 PM
MIA all the way.
Of course I'll take a piston over DI any day.

SadistAssassin
October 6, 2010, 07:29 PM
M1A will be more accurate. AR-10 will be much lighter....and cheaper.

THORN74
October 6, 2010, 07:30 PM
im sure an AR10 variant is better in many ways, but "there's no school, like the OLD SCHOOL!!"

M14/M1A all the way!!!

SadistAssassin
October 6, 2010, 07:36 PM
M1A. If your afraid of a lack of accessories for m1a's then go to thefultonarmory.com

SR420
October 6, 2010, 07:40 PM
SadistAssassin M1A. If your afraid of a lack of accessories for m1a's then go to thefultonarmory.com

Did someone say accessories?

Go to smithenterprise.com (http://www.smithenterprise.com/)

zombieslayer
October 6, 2010, 07:45 PM
I don't know why people think that AR's in .308 are lighter. They're almost the same weight. Those AR's are deceptively porky, especially with any accessories.

SR420
October 6, 2010, 08:05 PM
zombieslayer I don't know why people think that AR's in .308 are lighter. They're almost the same weight.
Those AR's are deceptively porky, especially with any accessories.

+1

madcratebuilder
October 7, 2010, 06:45 AM
I think the AR10 has a slight advantage in accuracy. There is no op-rod or gas cylinder to add to barrel harmonics, fewer moving parts.

With a scope and a 25 round mag both are not what I would call "light".

Both have been in service for about the same amount of time with various military services around the world.

I have two M1A's and 1 AR10, I shoot all of them about the same accuracy. I'm more comfortable behind the M1A's as I have much more trigger time with them. All 3 go to the range together, I'm an equal opportunity shooter.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/madcratebuilder/AR10/noveske01.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/madcratebuilder/2M1As.jpg

RLFD5415
October 7, 2010, 06:48 AM
I don't know why people think that AR's in .308 are lighter. They're almost the same weight. Those AR's are deceptively porky, especially with any accessories.


For an apples to apples comparison, you need to consider an M14 with an aftermarket stock. The aftermarket stocks add serious weight. On average, my M14s outwiegh my ARs by 1.5-2 lbs.

SR420
October 7, 2010, 07:25 AM
RLFD5415


For an apples to apples comparison, you need to consider an M14 with an aftermarket stock.
The aftermarket stocks add serious weight. On average, my M14s outwiegh my ARs by 1.5-2 lbs.

The newest aftermarket stock for the M14 is well balanced and not that heavy.

http://i895.photobucket.com/albums/ac160/The_H2O_MAN/MK14EBR-RI/IMG_3230.jpg

tirod
October 7, 2010, 10:12 AM
In the .308, the last two official procurements were the SCAR H for SOCOM, and the L129A1 for the British in Afghanistan.

The US isn't buying M14's, just refurbing what they have. It's cheap and works good enough. As a statement of which action is superior, it's isn't. It needs the same improvements already in the others, a free float barrel with rails. That means using a SAGE stock, which is basically a AR chassis, to fix most of what's wrong with the M14. What it can't fix is having an exposed bolt that makes it difficult to put a rail over. Fortunately, we get by with the long relief optics that go on it.

The basic operating design of the M14 is older than the AK-47. Warm fuzzy feelings don't fix what has been long ago found wanting.

pythagorean
October 7, 2010, 10:21 AM
After having both I ended up keeping the M1 A mostly because of personal taste and history with one before the AR 10s came back.
I think the AR is at its best in the AR 15.

madcratebuilder you have a gorgeous M1 A!

RLFD5415
October 7, 2010, 10:26 AM
The newest aftermarket stock for the M14 is well balanced and not that heavy.


Don't keep me guessing, man! What does that beautiful puppy weigh?

SR420
October 7, 2010, 02:04 PM
tirod

The US isn't buying M14's, just refurbing what they have. It's cheap and works good enough.

The US bought and paid for the M14's decades ago, modernizing them is not only extremely cost effective the rifles have proven themselves to be more than just good enough.

Like the venerable Kalashnikov, the M14 uses a basic system that has proven itself reliable on many battlefields.




Quote:
The newest aftermarket stock for the M14 is well balanced and not that heavy.


RLFD5415

Don't keep me guessing, man! What does that beautiful puppy weigh?

Weight: 12 lbs. 15.5 oz.

Even with it's 22.0" medium heavy barrel the rifle balances very well.
Adding the scope, rings and bi pod brings the weight up to 15 lbs. 12.8 oz.



.

azredhawk44
October 7, 2010, 06:33 PM
The US isn't buying M14's, just refurbing what they have. It's cheap and works good enough. As a statement of which action is superior, it's isn't. It needs the same improvements already in the others, a free float barrel with rails.

Untruthiness.

You don't free-float an M14. It doesn't work, because the gas piston impacts violently against the op-rod, which impacts violently against the spring and spring guide.

Free-floating an M14 is a condition of an INaccurized M14. The front band that hangs over the barrel and joins it to the stock uses tension to keep the barrel mated to the stock in a consistent manner, not unlike a Mannlicher style european rifle.

If that band is loose or wobbly, it's possible for the gas piston to strike the op-rod face at an inconsistent position for each shot. This will open groups up.

The front band should secure the barrel in place with no wobble. This is NOT free-floating.

Ridge_Runner_5
October 7, 2010, 07:47 PM
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5466/x912.jpg

madcratebuilder
October 8, 2010, 08:26 AM
You don't free-float an M14. It doesn't work, because the gas piston impacts violently against the op-rod, which impacts violently against the spring and spring guide.

Free-floating an M14 is a condition of an INaccurized M14. The front band that hangs over the barrel and joins it to the stock uses tension to keep the barrel mated to the stock in a consistent manner, not unlike a Mannlicher style european rifle.

If that band is loose or wobbly, it's possible for the gas piston to strike the op-rod face at an inconsistent position for each shot. This will open groups up.

The front band should secure the barrel in place with no wobble. This is NOT free-floating.

+1

I think this is the key area for the M1A. Unitizing the gas cylinder and having the correct preload at the front band is critical. The length of the piston and it's interaction with the op-rod are also critical.

Anyone interested in more info on this check at
http://www.m14tfl.com
search "unitize" "dwell time" There is hours and hours of reading their.

SR420
October 8, 2010, 09:19 AM
If you are inclined to do it better... the SAGE EBR replaces the barrel band with a crush washer.
The crush washer ensures a tight, unitized gas system. There is also a lockable barrel set screw at
the very front of the top rail that aides in repeatable accuracy and the barrel is semi-free floated
ahead of the rigid op rod guide block. This reduces barrel whip and increases repeatable accuracy.

The receiver is tension bedded in the chassis... the SAGE EBR is rock solid and designed to provide reliable, repeatable accuracy.

Anyone interested in more info on the modernized M14 should visit The M14HDW Forum (http://m14hdw.proboards.com/index.cgi).

Ozzieman
October 8, 2010, 01:12 PM
I have never shot an AR in 308 and have owned several national match M1A. So I can’t say which I would choose. I like my AR's a lot mainly for the lack of recoil and being able to shoot it all day. But would
I trade an M1A for an AR 308? Not sure.
But to say The M14 is a dead platform Sorry, They said the same thing about the B52 back in the 70's and people laughed then.

kraigwy
October 8, 2010, 01:24 PM
Free-floating an M14 is a condition of an INaccurized M14. The front band that hangs over the barrel and joins it to the stock uses tension to keep the barrel mated to the stock in a consistent manner, not unlike a Mannlicher style european rifle.

If that band is loose or wobbly, it's possible for the gas piston to strike the op-rod face at an inconsistent position for each shot. This will open groups up.

The front band should secure the barrel in place with no wobble. This is NOT free-floating.

Ummm. That's not exactly correct. The barrel/gas system on my Heavy Match M1A is in fact "floated'.

That is taught (or was when I went through it) the NGB_MTU Armor's course for National Matching a M-14. When properly done, you should be able to squeeze the stock and barrel assembly together and it would spring back when released. There should be a gap, where you can run a cleaning patch between the stock and the lower band. After cleaning you're suppose to put grease (as in luberplate) between the band and stock.

Somewhere I have the Manuel for Accruing the M14, if I can find it, I'll scan it and post it here.

madcratebuilder
October 9, 2010, 07:43 AM
Ummm. That's not exactly correct. The barrel/gas system on my Heavy Match M1A is in fact "floated'.

That is taught (or was when I went through it) the NGB_MTU Armor's course for National Matching a M-14. When properly done, you should be able to squeeze the stock and barrel assembly together and it would spring back when released. There should be a gap, where you can run a cleaning patch between the stock and the lower band. After cleaning you're suppose to put grease (as in luberplate) between the band and stock.

Somewhere I have the Manuel for Accruing the M14, if I can find it, I'll scan it and post it here.

From what I have read the Army and Marines have been using a 10-11lb barrel tension or "draw pressure" since the early 1980's. This tension insures that the barrel returns to the same spot after each round is fired.

This is a partial quote from Gus Fisher over at the M14 firing line on barrel tension. It's a worth while read.
http://www.m14tfl.com/upload/showthread.php?t=67322

"I was thinking of answering some questions about this in other threads, but decided I wanted to put my thoughts on the subject here so I could easily refer back to it later. Before we can talk about using shims, I think we had better understand how the gas cylinder is held to the barrel, so let's start there.

With the standard G.I. barrel and the old G.I. standard barrel configuration NM barrel (AKA "Light Barrel" as it came to be called after the Heavy and Medium Heavy Barrels came out) the thing that held the gas system from forward to rear movement was the GC lock on the barrel threads and with some help from the lugs on the cylinder fitting into the barrel splines. That means most of the pressure from the pounding of the Gas Cylinder operating was taken up by the barrel threads (same thing on the Garand as well, BTW). On the M14 GC locks, they really did a good job of indexing the start of the threads in the lock and that's why you don't see a whole lot of difference between the way G.I. M14 GC locks fit - except between putting the lock on with the front or back side first.

Yes, there is a front and back side to a G.I. M14 GC lock. If you look REAL close, the back side is higher and has a small downward taper towards the front. On some locks, this is extremely difficult to impossible to see. Since it was that hard, the G.I. comic book "PM Magazine" had at least one short article on trying the fit of the locks, even though it was not allowed for anyone other than an armorer to take the FS and lock off the barrel. The "jist" of that article is that you try putting the lock on the barrel with each side facing backwards and the side that goes the least distance around the clock after it goes beyond 6 o'clock, is the side you use on a standard, Battle Rifle M14.

That pressure put on the barrel threads by the GC lock was not something we worried about on active duty. When the barrel threads wore loose, we just evac'd the rifle for barrel replacement. The government picked up the tab for the new barrel, installation, shipping, etc. In most cases in the civilian world, though, WE have to pick up the tab to do that.

We had already been using GC shims when I showed up at the RTE Shop at Quantico in November 1973 to begin my OJT period to become an MOS 2112, Rifle Team Equipment Repairman (NM Armorer). At that time, the main purpose of using the shims was to fill up the tolerance slop or looseness from the way the standard locks fit and held the GC in place. This kept the GC from becoming loose front to back as quickly and also from circumferential movement wear. We got this from experience we had with Garands and changing locks so the lock would tighten the GC down against the barrel shoulder with some resistance or friction. As already mentioned, there wasn't that much difference between locks on the M14, so we had to come up with a different way to do it and shims was the answer. The shims ensured the GC stayed tight and in the same position from shot to shot for quite a large number of rounds fired. This uniformity or repeatability helped accuracy.

After talking with real Mechanical Engineers, the shims also do something we may not have realized back then. When the shims are used and the GC lock stops around 5 o'clock to 5:30, we are putting circumferential torque on the GC, Front Band and barrel. That actually changes the beating on the barrel threads and makes the barrel threads last longer. I'm not a real Mechanical Engineer, so excuse me if this isn't exactly the way it should be described.

After the Heavy and Medium Heavy barrels came out, there were also a couple other ways to "skin the cat" of keeping the GC lock tight, but since this post is running long, I'll continue that in Part II."


There are dozens of threads at M14fl about barrel tension, bedding and shims are the two common methods of setting the barrel tension.