Veteran's Advice: SR556 vs. M1A - Page 2

bamaranger · March 25, 2017, 03:53 AM

If the OP is an "'06 guy", than he's already familiar with the 7.62x51/.308 ballistically whether he knows it or not. Although you will stir up clubhouse and online debates, practically speaking, the two cartridges are very similar in performance. When you factor in barrel lengths, distance to game , and ammo sources and variance, practically speaking, the two are twins. Yes the '06 has more capacity and fares well with heavy slugs, and the catalogs will state the '06 has higher velocity, but all things are seldom equal, consider:

-my 26" bolt match rifle in .308, will exceed any velocity with any bullet weight, that I can obtain with my 20 inch, Mannlicher stocked YZ '06 carbine
-my standard 150 gr reload velocities in my Garands, w/ 24" tubes, are about the equal of hunting 150's from my 20" barreled .308 bolt Scout
-my 22" barreled vintage .308 lever rifle, will about equal the 20" YZ Mannlicher '06 (never really compared them)

Game shot at assorted distances, will have the slugs arriving at various velocities accordingly......and same terminal effect, a .30 cal slug at somewhere between 2500 fps and say 2100 fps. (100 -300 yds). Whose to know how far your next shot will be? Will your slug arrive at '06 or .308 velocities? Could be either, depending on the distance.

In my role as Ranger Rick, I had access to both an AR M-4 style carbine(14.5 tube) , and an honest to gosh M14, both semi auto only. They both served as patrol rifles and for hog control. I never got to shoot a hog with the .30. The guys that routinely did, claimed the .30 did a much better job of anchoring the critters , or limiting their flight after the shot. I liked the M14, and the nostalgia associated with it, and mine was far more accurate the M4 carbine, especially with 168 gr Match Ammo, which was standard. But I found the M14 a real pain to carry due to weight/bulk, and far to long for general use around structures or to deploy from a vehicle. , and generally ended up slinging it if I was going any distance, or simply left it locked in its rack in the back, and taking the M4 from up front. I can understand why the M16/ and now the M4 found favor with the GI's interms of portability. A SOCOM length M1a, with a tidy box of 10 rds, defanged and melted of sharp edges moulded magazine, and state of the art synthetic lightweight stock, might help with the utility of a patrol semi .308 rifle. The MVP family of .308 bolts might be the easy solution.

AS a GP everyday round, the .223/5.56 is cheaper, easier to shoot, and when used with expanding modern ammo, a good stopper as a SD carbine, certainly far superior to a handgun. I do not see it as a game cartridge for critters much in excess of 100lbs, but folks are constantly applying it in that fashion. An AR carbine, if not "overdressed" is a handy and portable firearm, and if well built, reliable. A tidy bolt rifle, with say a 20" tube like the some versions of the MVP, or a YZ Mini Mauser is even simpler still.

orsogato · March 29, 2017, 06:30 PM

As a "practical" rifle, for my .02 federal reserve notes, there is really no contest between these two platforms. My vote would be AR-15 platform all the way.

5.56 Ammo is cheaper. Just as effective at reasonable ranges as a defensive round, and has much better size/ weight constraints than .308.

The AR is way easier to fix / work on, modify, etc. Magazines are way more cost effective also. For example, you can re-barrel an AR in 15 minutes, an m1a - not so much.

The AR is also way easier to accessorize with optics, etc.

stagpanther · March 29, 2017, 06:37 PM

deleted--just realized this thread is for vets only to respond to--my apologies.

rickyrick · March 29, 2017, 07:03 PM

From a veterans point of view:

The m4/m16 weapons are the logistically most economical in terms of the battlefield. There are technically better weapons, but at a cost of weight and capacity. The fact that we are still using similar weapons after 50 years says a lot.

As a civilian, you can pick anything you want.

Mobuck · March 31, 2017, 06:12 AM

I'm not sure why the OP was asking veterans' opinions of something to shoot paper targets and bunny rabbits so ASSumed he was interested in bigger game.

March 25, 2017, 03:53 AM	#26
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,308	practical everyday If the OP is an "'06 guy", than he's already familiar with the 7.62x51/.308 ballistically whether he knows it or not. Although you will stir up clubhouse and online debates, practically speaking, the two cartridges are very similar in performance. When you factor in barrel lengths, distance to game , and ammo sources and variance, practically speaking, the two are twins. Yes the '06 has more capacity and fares well with heavy slugs, and the catalogs will state the '06 has higher velocity, but all things are seldom equal, consider: -my 26" bolt match rifle in .308, will exceed any velocity with any bullet weight, that I can obtain with my 20 inch, Mannlicher stocked YZ '06 carbine -my standard 150 gr reload velocities in my Garands, w/ 24" tubes, are about the equal of hunting 150's from my 20" barreled .308 bolt Scout -my 22" barreled vintage .308 lever rifle, will about equal the 20" YZ Mannlicher '06 (never really compared them) Game shot at assorted distances, will have the slugs arriving at various velocities accordingly......and same terminal effect, a .30 cal slug at somewhere between 2500 fps and say 2100 fps. (100 -300 yds). Whose to know how far your next shot will be? Will your slug arrive at '06 or .308 velocities? Could be either, depending on the distance. In my role as Ranger Rick, I had access to both an AR M-4 style carbine(14.5 tube) , and an honest to gosh M14, both semi auto only. They both served as patrol rifles and for hog control. I never got to shoot a hog with the .30. The guys that routinely did, claimed the .30 did a much better job of anchoring the critters , or limiting their flight after the shot. I liked the M14, and the nostalgia associated with it, and mine was far more accurate the M4 carbine, especially with 168 gr Match Ammo, which was standard. But I found the M14 a real pain to carry due to weight/bulk, and far to long for general use around structures or to deploy from a vehicle. , and generally ended up slinging it if I was going any distance, or simply left it locked in its rack in the back, and taking the M4 from up front. I can understand why the M16/ and now the M4 found favor with the GI's interms of portability. A SOCOM length M1a, with a tidy box of 10 rds, defanged and melted of sharp edges moulded magazine, and state of the art synthetic lightweight stock, might help with the utility of a patrol semi .308 rifle. The MVP family of .308 bolts might be the easy solution. AS a GP everyday round, the .223/5.56 is cheaper, easier to shoot, and when used with expanding modern ammo, a good stopper as a SD carbine, certainly far superior to a handgun. I do not see it as a game cartridge for critters much in excess of 100lbs, but folks are constantly applying it in that fashion. An AR carbine, if not "overdressed" is a handy and portable firearm, and if well built, reliable. A tidy bolt rifle, with say a 20" tube like the some versions of the MVP, or a YZ Mini Mauser is even simpler still.

March 29, 2017, 06:37 PM	#28
stagpanther Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2014 Posts: 11,787	deleted--just realized this thread is for vets only to respond to--my apologies. __________________ "Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill *I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!*

March 29, 2017, 06:30 PM	#27
orsogato Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 1999 Location: Steeler Country Posts: 628	As a "practical" rifle, for my .02 federal reserve notes, there is really no contest between these two platforms. My vote would be AR-15 platform all the way. 5.56 Ammo is cheaper. Just as effective at reasonable ranges as a defensive round, and has much better size/ weight constraints than .308. The AR is way easier to fix / work on, modify, etc. Magazines are way more cost effective also. For example, you can re-barrel an AR in 15 minutes, an m1a - not so much. The AR is also way easier to accessorize with optics, etc.

March 29, 2017, 07:03 PM	#29
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,237	From a veterans point of view: The m4/m16 weapons are the logistically most economical in terms of the battlefield. There are technically better weapons, but at a cost of weight and capacity. The fact that we are still using similar weapons after 50 years says a lot. As a civilian, you can pick anything you want.

March 31, 2017, 06:12 AM	#30
Mobuck Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2010 Posts: 6,846	I'm not sure why the OP was asking veterans' opinions of something to shoot paper targets and bunny rabbits so ASSumed he was interested in bigger game.