The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 14, 2010, 03:24 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2010
Posts: 124
Who's had/seen problems with Springfield M1A's???

Hey guy,

I'm planning to purchase a Springfield M1A Loaded rifle next year. I've read mixed reviews online so I want to be absolutely sure before a spend $1600. Here are the questions:
  1. Has anyone had or seen a malfunction on an M1A? (something breaking, jams, etc.)
  2. Would you consider an M1A to be extremely reliable/durable?

Many Thanks,

JerryHN is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 03:27 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: October 13, 2010
Posts: 598
They're extremely spendy for what you get in relation to performance and features but they are fairly reliable. No more or less reliable than the other quality autoloaders on the market.

Added - What's always concerned me and in my personal and admittedly limited experience with the type is that how exposed the action is relative to many other autoloaders can make the weapon dirtier, faster than other autoloaders - especially AR-10s if they have a dust cover.
10mmAuto is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 03:34 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: August 9, 2009
Posts: 645
Reliable under normal conditions? Ive noticed the "openness" of the action and parts with my buddies mini 14 and would assume the m1a is similar, although have no experience with one. I was planning on buying one in the near future though, maybe this thread will talk me in or out of it.
kx592 is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 03:58 PM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Posts: 293
I've seen them jam up just fine. Don't let much of anything more viscous than oil to get into the action in decent quantities. Also, at first you can get some problems with stiff springs or lighter loads which will either require manual cycling of the action or clearing a stovepipe. They are by no means a high-tolerance action.

They are fairly reliable rifles as said above but our military switched to something a little more grunt-friendly because the M1A design really couldn't be helped anymore. If you're just going to be sitting under a covered bench at a shooting range there's not many guns that will fail just shooting in optimum conditions.

IMO for the high price of Springfields I would rather get a DSA made FAL, a PTR-91, or save a little more for a QUALITY AR-10 platform (Not a piece of **** DPMS) like this:

There's really no point in buying an M1A-type rifle over any of the modern designed rifles unless you're interested in the nostalgic factor. Same can be said about the 1911 platform (unless you're made of money and really really like the ergonomics).
"From my cold, dead hands!" - Charlton Heston
Volucris is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 03:58 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2008
Location: Fort Yukon, Alaska
Posts: 725
I have had a few malfunctions, but they were all the result of either handloaded ammunition(before I started using small base sizer die) or the ARMS scope mount that did not provide enough clearance for brass ejection. With factory or correctly loaded ammunition it has been flawless.
roklok is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 04:02 PM   #6
Junior member
Join Date: March 13, 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,129
I've seen 3 or 4 out at the range. All of them had some kind of problem ranging from small parts breakage (like the front sight or some part of the sights) to just plain not cycling with any reliability.

Springfield is a marketing company that sells junk with a legendary name on it. I wouldn't buy anything from those jokers.
demigod is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 04:13 PM   #7
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 10,059
Maybe its when the gun was made. I got my M1A in 1977, I've shot the hell out of it. I have shot it quite heavily in HP and practicing for high power.

I haven't broken any parts. I have shot out a few barrels and stretched out a few slings but other then that I've had no problems.

The only problem (as far as malfunctions) I've had have been traced to ammo, reloaded ammo that didn't have the shoulder set back properly.

New brass, factory or "properly reloaded" hand loads have worked flawlessly.

I would discribe the M1A as highly relialble.
Kraig Stuart
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 04:43 PM   #8
Tim R
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2004
Location: God's side of Washington State
Posts: 1,601
They are fairly reliable rifles as said above but our military switched to something a little more grunt-friendly because the M1A design really couldn't be helped anymore.
The M1A is a simi auto version of the M-14. The M1A never saw combat. I was happy to see the M-14 brought back out for Iraq and seems to do well. One rifle just like tools can't do everything.

I shot a M-14 for the Navy team back in the late 80's and early 90's. I wore a couple of rifles out. I had a problem once when I pitched an extractor on a high mileage rifle.

A M1A is on my list of things to get, even though my AR's do fine on the firing line.
God Bless our Troops especially our Snipers.
Tim R is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 06:47 PM   #9
Join Date: July 21, 2008
Posts: 96
Buy Boston's gun bible. It would be a very good investment before you buy. It compares the M1A to everything else out there and the M1A came in first.
Read the book and figure out what is most important to you in a rifle. The FN FAL could be a better choice for some people depending on their needs.

The M1A has fewer parts than all of the other rifles including the Ak47.

I have had zero issues with mine.
FSJeeper is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 06:56 PM   #10
Senior Member
Join Date: December 10, 2009
Posts: 109
Bought mine used in '91 and have sent north of 5K rounds downrange and could not be more pleased goes bang every time I pull the trigger.. Sent it back to springie for a checkup and it's still good to go. Shot it off the bench and it still will put milspec ball ammo in the black. There just a classic old rifle, and fun to shoot. You can spend lotsa $ on the custom made ones or just shoot the rack grade model.
oakfloor is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 07:30 PM   #11
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2010
Location: Chicago 'Burbs
Posts: 536
ive had mine for almost a year. had a few double fires, tracked it down to a mis-shapen trigger. it since been replaced, and shes a beauty of a rifle now.

since i got her in feb of this year, i have put about 1000 rounds thru her. including 500 rounds of wolf steel case at and appleseed in April. in 1000+ round i can only remember maybe less than 5 FTE/FTF. I mostly shoot mil-surp so im chalking those up to the ammo more than the rifle.

IMHO, buy one ASAP!!
Sig P226 .40s&w/9mm -- Kimber Pro CDP .45ACP -- Radom P64 9X18mm Makarov -- Dan Wesson RZ-45 Heritage .45ACP -- Ruger SR22 .22LR -- M&P9c 9mm
Springfield Armory Inc. M1A Scout 7.62X51mm NATO -- Kar 98AZ (1917 Erfurt) 8mm Mauser -- Marlin Model 60 Glenfield .22LR -- Marlin 795 .22LR -- Marlin 915y .22LR -- AR15 5.56x45mm NATO -- Springfield Armory M1 Garand 30-06
THORN74 is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 08:11 PM   #12
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Posts: 629
SA Inc has by far the worst quality control of any maker of high dollar rifles.

That does not mean they don't make quality rifles. It means they produce both 100% perfect rifles and rifles that look like they were made in a tent in Pakistan on the same day. I have seen plenty of examples of them both many times.

I know this is going to really PO some folks but it is FACT.

Now about reliability. If you get a good one and use GI mags and good ammo they are close to be as reliable as an AK.
MythBuster is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 09:16 PM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 9,246
Their earlier guns, both rifles and pistols, were actually pretty good, and I never had a problem with any of those, its the later guns that I had problems with, and it took me awhile and a number of guns to learn the lesson. Now I wont waste anymore money on them, unless its an older gun and I can shoot it first.
"If the rule you followed brought you to this,
of what use was the rule?"
AK103K is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 10:49 PM   #14
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Posts: 147
I've put several thousand rounds through my early 90's era M1A. Mostly reloads. No issues whatsoever.
"I'd much rather go to my grave never needing my gun, than go there wishing I had it." - Phil Dalmolin
KySilverado is offline  
Old December 14, 2010, 11:11 PM   #15
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2008
Posts: 557
Mine is a 'loaded' model made in '96 and I have never had any FTE/FTF problems with it in 1500K+ rounds (pretty much shoot nothing but Black Hills match and Georgia Arms reloads). I have owned at some point in the recent past a DSA FAL, PTR 91, and an AR 10 type rifle so I can speak from experience when I say that the M1A is the most natural pointing and accurate battle rifle I have ever shouldered. Would I say it's the most reliable... I'd never make that claim. Would it be the first rifle I grab in an emergency... probably not. Would I ever consider selling or trading it... not a chance!!
brmfan is offline  
Old December 15, 2010, 03:16 AM   #16
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2010
Posts: 124
So it seems as though the newer M1A's from Springfield are experiencing some trouble. Although the reviews of the rifle are a mix of good and bad, I will not be spending over $1000 for a rifle that I cannot trust 100%.

Thanks everyone for your input. Looks like no M1A for me.
JerryHN is offline  
Old December 15, 2010, 06:20 AM   #17
Senior Member
Join Date: October 13, 2010
Posts: 598
Get an FNAR and you won't be disappointed.
10mmAuto is offline  
Old December 15, 2010, 06:41 AM   #18
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Looks like no M1A for me.
My first worked and shot so well I got a second. Pure luck again I suppose...cause I'm thinking about a third.
But on the whole I agree, it's probobly best you don't get one.
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old December 15, 2010, 08:06 AM   #19
Senior Member
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Posts: 273
So it seems as though the newer M1A's from Springfield are experiencing some trouble. Although the reviews of the rifle are a mix of good and bad, I will not be spending over $1000 for a rifle that I cannot trust 100%.
You requested opinions from those who have seen/had problems with an M1A. That's exactly what you got. There are many lesser rifles out there in the world. Best of luck in finding one that suits your needs. Also, no rifle is going to be 100%, no matter what others may say.
az_imuth is offline  
Old December 15, 2010, 08:06 AM   #20
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Location: Northern Orygun
Posts: 4,890
The SA extractor is problematic, it should be replaced with a usgi extractor.

Some early SA rifles had a bolt recall, if you buy one and it needs a bolt contact SA and they well send you a pre-paid shipping box and take care of you.

I keep a spare set of gi bolt parts on hand, never had to use them to date. I've replaced the recoil springs on both mine with Tubbs CS springs.
madcratebuilder is offline  
Old December 15, 2010, 09:08 AM   #21
Senior Member
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 9,246
My early guns had GI parts and seem to be built to proper specs, the later guns were not.

My SOCOM was so tight, it needed a small screwdriver to get the the gun apart for cleaning, where it should come apart easily without tools.

The stock was a badly done over GI stock with selector notch filled in (they didnt fill in the notch for the linkagae though), the molded in checkering ground off fore and aft, making the stock very narrow through the grip. It was obvious when you looked closely at it, and it was confirmed when I started shooting it, as the ejected brass was knocking the paint off where it hit the stock revealing the original finish underneath.

The barrel mounted scout rail was not mil spec, as they claimed, Weaver maybe, but not picatinny/mil spec. None of my ARMS mounts would stay tight on it, and my LaRue lever mount would not even go on it, as the spacing of the rail was wrong. Weaver rings do work OK. Another issue with the rail was, its made of steel and gets very hot very fast, and retains the heat. While my Aimpoints and Leupold scope did seem to be OK with it, it was a little disconcerting, and I dont know how it would have affected things down the road. Probably not a big issue if you dont shoot it a lot.

I called Springfields CS department asking about the above, and was told the stock was definitely not done over GI and the rail most certainly was mil spec. When I asked why my mil spec mounts and rings worked perfectly well on all my other "mil spec" rails, they blew me off. Same when I pointed out the things on the stock. That was the last time I called Springfield, and the SOCOM was, and most likely will be, my last Springfield product.
"If the rule you followed brought you to this,
of what use was the rule?"
AK103K is offline  
Old December 15, 2010, 09:37 AM   #22
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,027
Jerry, my problematic Scout was purchased brand new in 2001 and required four (4) warranty repairs before I was able to get 500 rounds through it.
It jammed and locked-up after the 2nd or 3rd shot and the problems continued after that. The silver lining to my M1A saga was that Springfield
replaced the original reproduction parts that failed with TRW USGI parts. My scout required another repair before I had fired 800 rounds, but this
time I followed the advice given to me by Lee Emerson (Different) and sent the rifle to Smith Enterprise.

Ron Smith made it better, but I decided to part it out and have SEI custom build a MK14 SEI for me. I quickly fired 2000+ rounds from that rifle without
a single problem. That awesome experience convinced me to never buy another Springfield M1A and deal exclusively with SEI. To date, Ron and the guys at SEI have built a total of 5 outstanding M14s for me and a 6th M14 is being built right now.
SR420 is offline  
Old December 15, 2010, 10:51 AM   #23
Junior member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 970
I believe any rifle of any manufacture has had problems with some buyers. It can be "the luck of the draw" when getting any NIB gun.

I started buying the M1-A in 1987 when Springfield was using TRW and Winchester parts from the 60s. I've continued buying the M1-A for a total of 5 of them. My latest and last is the SOCOM 16 I got a couple years ago or perhaps a few months less.

I've not had any problems with any of them except to remind you that if you use standard hunting ammunition with exposed jacketed lead points the action will scrape up the lead tip a bit--but not affecting accuracy at 100 yards as far as I could tell.

If you plan or desire later to add optics you better think before you buy the M1-A. The standard version can be adapted for a scope but it is too high up for the cheek weld. The Scout and SOCOM 16 have addressed this problem nicely!

I have 19 rifles right now. The SOCOM 16 is in many ways my most favorite and trusted rifle all in a very tidy package. It is easily the most durable of all my rifles as well.
pythagorean is offline  
Old December 15, 2010, 10:16 PM   #24
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 14,303
I can't speak for any of the newer made rifles, except that the asking price is well beyond what I think they are worth (but then, thats true of nearly everything these days).

I got mine back in the mid 80s, and all the parts except the receiver are GI. Mine still has the hole in the stock for the FA parts! No problems of any kind, ever.

As to the open receiver being a problem, well, it is, and it isn't. Yes, its easy for stuff to get in there, but its also easy to get the stuff out. The M14 is a refinement of the M1 action, and for some reason, lots of WWII vets (and others) think highly of that rifle.

That being said, EVERYTHING JAMS!!!! Even AKs! Take care of your rifle, and it will take care of you.

our military switched to something a little more grunt-friendly...
I don't recall the M16/M16A1 being more "grunt friendly" than the M14 (or the M1). Rather the opposite, in fact.

Unfortunately, like the 1911A1 pistol, the more modern makers tweak and "improve" the M14 (M1A), the further it seems to go from the rugged and reliable weapon it is in stock GI trim.

The M1A is a very good rifle (or at least they were when first made), but its not the be all, end all of rifles, NO rifle is. I really love mine, and have kept it, while H&Ks and FALs have come and gone. I just shoot it better than the others.

If you get a match gun, don't expect it to be happy in the trenches. IF you get one that is field suitable, don't expect match accuracy. There's no free lunch. And this is true for a lot more guns than the M1A.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 16, 2010, 12:50 AM   #25
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 248
i have a m1a scout. mounted sadlak scope mount. awesome rifle.

i suggest looking at the FNAR & FAL by DSA.
A prudent man forsees evil and hides himself; the simple pass on and are punished
Proverbs 27:12
Chinny33 is offline  

assault rifle , battle rifle , m1a , springfield

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2015 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.20104 seconds with 7 queries