View Full Version : Brief Comparison for long term purchase planning: M1A vs. R-25

December 31, 2010, 04:07 PM
Before you guys either jump down my throat and kill me for even merely disrespecting the name of the M1A by submitting it to such petty comparisons, LOL, i am just seeking some basic comparisons.

I lack a .308 rifle or any long range capability and want to add one to my portfolio eventually. OF course it may wind up being a bolt action, but today we will only consider these two..

I am partial to Remington and now also Bushmaster and I like alot of their products. Matter of fact I almost bought an R-15 baaack in early Feb but thats a long long story, if you want to hear it you'll need to eg me on a bit. Anyway I like the R-25 a bit.

The M1A , I need not describe it. I surmise we all can just say, It's an M1A. More importantly lol, which config/options is your flavor.

So I am askling for a bit of this-that, not necessarily combat in the sandbox and gunsmithing but mall ninja combined with some regular joe shooting and mix in some SHTF and or emergencies.

Thanks thanks much I appreciate your h;elp.

December 31, 2010, 10:25 PM
Pros and cons for each. You have to decide what's important to you.

The M1A is a reliable in function and relatively easy to maintain (with a couple of specific tools). However, if you want to shoot cloverleafs, it is going to take some time, effort and money to accurize it. The action is not friendly for mounting a scope. It will require a special mount.

The R-25 is probably more accurate right of the box, and can be maintianed without tools. However, DI systems dump a lot of fouling back onto the bolt and inside the carrier. If you think a 5.56 is bad, wait till you see how much crap a 7.62 creates.

December 31, 2010, 11:10 PM
Kurt, what are DI systems? I've been looking into these same two guns as well.

January 1, 2011, 12:06 AM
Direct impingement. Its definitely dirty but plenty reliable. Then again the R-25 is a DPMS. I'd look at getting an AR-10 from a more reputable vendor if you want something really reliable. If you're going to use it very casually though it would be fine.
Added- Think about an FNAR light barrel. Dead reliable piston operation and <1moa guarantee. And if you're military I'd be surprised if FN doesn't run another Mil discount next year.

January 1, 2011, 08:29 AM
Get either, maintain it according to instructions, shoot it, and you will be happy.

It never ceases to amaze me the internet lore that is passed on as fact by some. The DPMS is a plenty reliable system. The M1a is plenty reliable. Both have design limitations, but either will do its task very well within those limitations.

January 1, 2011, 09:24 AM
DI is Direct Impingement. It means there is no piston between the gas and the bolt. Everything that enters the port in the barrel ends up in the action.

It is a very reliable concept, since it eliminates a couple of parts. However, these eliminated parts are the ones that keep the crud up forward of the action. In the army it was described: It sh**s where it eats.

January 1, 2011, 09:38 AM
The 7.62 AR platform DI rifle is not that dirty unless you are shooting it suppressed. Just like it's little sister the AR15, it well depend on the quality of the ammo you choose to shoot. Either rifle when properly maintained is very reliable. Oil for the AR and grease for the M1A.

January 1, 2011, 10:43 AM
Good point about suppressor usage.

I run a sound suppressor on my M14s and even though there is a good bit of
blow back it does stay cleaner far longer than the suppressed DI ARs I've seen.

All of my suppressor ready rifles (M14s, AKM and K2) are piston driven.

January 1, 2011, 10:54 AM
Takticool there is nothing wrong with DPMS they can be as accurate as any other AR-10 varient out there. I have two DPMS, which are both very accurate, but they don't always use the best material to build there AR's. It's the old saying "you get what you pay for", but I can assure you going DPMS is not a mistake they make great firearms.

Here is one for review:


Personally I would go with an AR-10 just because they are easy to get parts for and mounting a scope is extremely easy. Also hunting with an AR-10 is more ideal than a M1A I've tried it.

January 1, 2011, 01:25 PM
I personally own both.

A M1A Scout Squad, with a Sadlak Aluminum mount fitted with a redfield 3x-9x.

A R-25 chambered in 243 win with a redfield 4x-12x.

They're both super awesome guns. If you want the M1A accurized to match the out of box accuracy of an R-25, you're going to have to change a few things.

I got lucky with my M1A being about 1"-2" at 100yds, consistently. Ive heard of horror stories of people with buckshot type groupings.

The R-25 is always 1" or less. ALWAYS. Magazines for the R-25 are significantly cheaper. Modifications are cheaper too, because of the supply that exists.

Cleaning the R-25 is easier for me because there are less actual parts to clean and wipe down. IMO.

Both are "older" designs. M1A designed in 1974, based on the M14 1954 design. The AR-10 was designed in 1956.

Both are CRAZY reliable. If you have seen any torture tests on both guns, they are amazing tools.

COST: M1A $1650, R-25 $1,700. about the same.

Muzzle brake on the M1A is awesome for follow-up shots, but is CRAZY LOUD!

Side to side, I would grab either one in a bad situation, but for hunting, the R-25 is WAY better. Im sure I can throw another $1k at the M1A and make it a quarter shooter @ 100yds, but I dont want to do that, I would just buy another gun with that money.

January 1, 2011, 02:44 PM
My hunting buddy had an R-25 for a while. Extremely accurate but it was a .243 and he really wanted something with a little more punch for deer. He just couldn't come up with the bucks for an R-25 in .260.

January 1, 2011, 03:26 PM
Plus one for what Stubbcat said, i think either one would make you very happy. I own a Springfield M1a, and it is just an incredible gun IMHO. It is just the Standard model, and it shoots around 2" with just about anything I put through it. they can be made to shoot much better than that though. My friend has one that is a true 3/4" gun at 100 yards.
An interesting thing with mine is that I got some 80's Military ammo that was Aussie made, 147gr. FMJ, and that stuff would group right about an inch all day long in my gun!! Of course all 640 rounds are gone now:(. But if I find any more I will buy every round I can afford;):D.
Anyhoo I think either gun will give you many years of great service and satisfaction if you take proper care, but I will have to say I am predjudiced toward the M1a. And it comes in a lot of different flavors. I am partial to the Carlos Hathcock "White Feather" model, and when I am somewhat richer than I am now, you can bet there will be one in my safe!!
And when it comes to the "SHTF" scenario, although it is heavy and the ammo weighs alot also, I do not think you can have a better weapon than the M1a.JMHO


Willy Henderson

January 1, 2011, 04:36 PM
So I am askling for a bit of this-that, not necessarily combat in the sandbox and gunsmithing but mall ninja combined with some regular joe shooting and mix in some SHTF and or emergencies.

Either one should be reliable enough for 99% of use. Neither is acceptable as a serious gunfighting weapon, but for a real world SHTF scenario like Katrina either would look hella-scary to anyone rolling up into your neighborhood looking for flat screen TVs. Neither is likely to still be in the running as something Mad Max would be carrying ten years after civilization implodes. ("SHTF" meaning different things to different people.)

In the M14 clone family, I think the scout length guns with the 18" barrel are a real sweet compromise of handling and function. Not a fan of the 16" silliness.

January 1, 2011, 11:32 PM
Both are "older" designs. M1A designed in 1974, based on the M14 1954 design. The AR-10 was designed in 1956.
The Modern "AR-10s" on the market are actually scaled up versions of modern AR-15s. All of which trace their ancestry back to the AR-10 of 1950s vintage, but bottom line it is a modern design.

January 1, 2011, 11:38 PM
Build your own AR-10 and don't overpay for a Remington or Springfield. It's easy.

January 1, 2011, 11:56 PM
Thanks very much , I appreciate and a lot of what I hoped to hear and also bet its what I thought I would hear.

I did no think I would get a PM berating me for asking the question, clearly someone who spent what is left of their kids college fund on the M1A that is not only the pride of their portfolio its the pride of their life.

Honestly never laughed so hard before. Did I really offend you so bad as to ask a question daring to compare the M1A?

FYI there is an M1A in the family, its just off limits to me and will be until I'm too old to actually have fun with it.... So I do apprciate what an M1A is

January 2, 2011, 07:44 AM
Neither is likely to still be in the running as something Mad Max would be carrying

A sawed off pistol grip side by side and whatever crusty rounds he could grab in Bartertown?

January 2, 2011, 06:07 PM
I had been an M1 Garand/M14 rifle fan since I first learned of rifles and firearms and eventually acquired both. I have since, as of just recently, gotten rid of both, realizing their limitations and needing more versatility.

My deciding factor was that both .30-06 and .308 are considered long-range rifle rounds. Point being that they can both be deadly and accurate beyond the range your eyes can see, I deduced that I could get more out of them if I were able to scope the rifle that fired those rounds.

Sure you can kill something pretty dead within the ranges you can make out your target with the naked eye, but what about the target you see but just can't quite make out? That little dot on the horizon?

I decided that for either of these calibers I would require a scoped rifle. Smaller or less powerful calibers I could use with or without scopes because even though they could probably hit a target beyond open sight ranges, their most effective ranges are within open sight ranges (aka 7.62X39, 6.8spc).

If I desired for some reason to shoot a .30-06 or .308 without using scopes then the M1 Garand/M-14 rifles would have sufficed. But as I required semi-automatic action with the ability to be easily and naturally scoped I found that it would be better to go with a rifle designed to be scoped. So I sold both my Garand and M1A and bought an RRA LAR-8.

If I feel the need to shoot it without optics the BUIS will work as good as any. When I need to scope it, it is the A4 model with milled-in Picatinny rail made for scope mounting.

It was the natural course for me to take in selecting a more effective and versatile .308 rifle.

January 3, 2011, 11:57 AM
Gas piston vs DI, take your pick.

The M1A is an exposed bolt, exposed operating rod weapon with fixed handle on a right handed shooters trigger hand. It's top eject to boot, which is a major interference with scope mounts. The M1A is based on the Garand, a pre WWII design of the '30s - not the '50's. It's a Curio and Relic in more than name only.

The R-25 is far more modern in design and especially the PROPER location of controls. It's likely more accurate out of the box, will be much easier and cheaper to make it accurate, will be easier and cheaper to properly mount a scope, and will be lighter, more durable, require less cleaning, and work better.

REQUIRE LESS CLEANING? Yes, just lubricate the upper cam track and pin, keep good magazines in it, lube it every now and then, shoot it often.

DI haters don't know what they are talking about. The two gas ports on the carrier shoot the residue out the ejection port. Once the bullet leaves the muzzle, the barrel sends it out behind the bullet ( a significant reason for good crowning.) As the action THEN unlocks, gas come out past the brass into the chamber, and last, the key separates from the gas tube, which vents what little got past the .070 barrel port.

ALL self loading actions pass gas into the action, they all eject dirty brass.

The two main areas of friction on the bolt carrier is the cam pin and track, and the magazine. The carrier has literally fractions of an inch separation from the upper everywhere else, residue isn't a problem there.

The TM says lubricate the track and cam pin heavily. Use good magazines, even better, polymer ones to reduce friction. AR's properly maintained don't have problems, it's just ignorant non military word of mouth.

You find the same guys know all about cars and women, too. Buahahahahaha.

Been married to my first wife over 35 years, drive cars for at least twenty years each before being forced to change, shot the M16 for 22 years with NO issues. Tell me all about it.

January 3, 2011, 12:51 PM
It's a Curio and Relic in more than name only.

:barf: Your stand up routine needs work.

January 3, 2011, 01:19 PM
I picked up an R-25 (.308) last year. Had the worst trigger of any of the guns I own including my pellet gun. They should be embarrassed to sell a rifle at that price with a trigger of such poor quality. ;) I don't have a trigger pull gauge, but it was like trying to squeeze a grease gun! Dropped in a Timney Trigger and all is well. Other than that issue I love it. It's a solid platform. Functions well with c-products and magpul magazines. Shoots very well, though I have only put about 100 rounds through it. I have not tried to shoot past 100yds yet either.