Springfield Armory M1A

Couldn't say, but I lust badly for the scout squad in a walnut stock.

Slater said:

For anyone who's bought a recent one, any positive/negative experiences? How's the accuracy?

Click to expand...

While I can't say "recently" mine is an early 90s NM version. I have never had a problem with the rifle and the accuracy has bee just fine. Just fine meaning using hand loads of AA 2496 and SMK 168 grain bullets it will shoot just under MOA at the 100 yard line. Obviously I like the rifle as I have had mine over 25 years and never gave any thought to selling it or replacing it.

It also shoots Federal Gold Medal Match factory ammunition very well.

Ron

I've owned several of these rifles over the years starting in 1975 and I currently have three of them. My experience has been that accuracy has been consistent over the years but remember that these are replicas of a military battle rifle and not a precision target rifle (although you can buy accurized versions that will shoot very well). Most will shoot somewhere around 2 to 3 MOA out of the box with the potential of shooting 1 to 2 MOA with a couple of simple modifications. Throwing money at these rifles to make them shoot like a target rifle will improve them but financially it's not a good investment. I've got a Loaded model that I've spent over $3k on to make it work better and it's only slightly better now that it was when I made the wood stock fit properly. Even with proper tuning and modifications most good shooters will only get the rifle to produce groups that average around 1 MOA. Yes, you can get tighter groups but I'm talking about consistent performance. When the weather was perfect and I was feeling right and the ammo was right for the circumstances, and the rifle was in perfect condition I was able to get under 1 MOA groups with my expensive rifle but I've had just as much success with my SOCOM model that I've only changed the stock on. Their expensive National Match rifles are really good shooters but the best compromise between cost and performance is the Loaded model (as far as a standard length barrel is concerned). For the shortest model I like the SOCOM but to get the best performance out of it you need to use ammo that's been designed for a 16" barrel. The Scout has an 18" barrel and the same ammo that works well in the standard 22" barrels will work well with the Scout. The SOCOM uses a proprietary brake (and contrary to most Internet experts, nothing else is different except for the 16.25" barrel length) while the Scout is the exact same rifle as the standard rifles but with a 18" barrel instead of the standard 22" barrel.

The most common problems that you'll find with the stock is that it's too tight where it shouldn't be and too loose where it shouldn't be. Their cheap mylar stock is typically junk, it's usually too loose everywhere. The newer Archangel stocks fit very well but I haven't had a chance to test them for accuracy.

Pay particular attention to the clearance between the handguard and the stock, there should be clearance between the two, if there isn't any clearance than taking the handguard off and sanding it will fix the problem.

There should also be clearance at the front of the stock between the metal ferrule (the end cap of the stock) and the front band (the metal plate in front of the ferrule) everywhere except the bottom of the plate. The bottom of the plate has a small lip and that should contact the bottom face of the ferrule with a few pounds of pressure. These issues take a little more work than sanding but not much, most any handyman can fix them with a little patience.

The back of the receiver should fit tight in the stock. If you push really hard to the left and right the back of the receiver shouldn't move to either side. This can be fixed on a wooden stock with proper epoxy bedding, on a mylar or composite stock you may not be able to fix it.

It should take several pounds of force to close the trigger guard when you reassemble the rifle. When you want to verify proper stock fit at the store, simply close the bolt and then turn the rifle upside down. Pull up and toward the front on the trigger guard, if it pivots forward without much effort then the stock doesn't fit well. If it takes a fair amount of effort to get the trigger guard to pivot forward and then it takes several pounds of pressure to close it again then the stock fit is good. This is another issue that would require bedding to fix with a wood stock, with a stock made from other material you may not be able to fix it.

I bought my M1A in 1990. The rifle is very accurate and reliable. This is still my favorite rifle in my safe.

I have never had a problem with this rifle. I was taught how to maintain this rifle from my Dad (USMC 64-69).

I have only shot surplus and commercial ammo in this rifle. I am not set up for reloading 7.62x51 (yet, lol).

The 2 I have experience with were from the 90s neither one would shoot worth beans. 3-5 moa with irons, worse with scopes because the guns weren't designed for a scope and the jury rigged mouts are mediocre at best, and still way to high for proper cheek weld on the stock.

I know some folks have success with them, but as far as my limited personal experience with them goes, they are basically a super heavy $1400 sks in 308. For the same money, buy an sksfor fun, a Ruger American in 308 with a decent scope for accuracy/hunting, and an m1 garand for nostalgia instead.

greyling22 said:

The 2 I have experience with were from the 90s neither one would shoot worth beans. 3-5 moa with irons, worse with scopes because the guns weren't designed for a scope and the jury rigged mouts are mediocre at best, and still way to high for proper cheek weld on the stock.

I know some folks have success with them, but as far as my limited personal experience with them goes, they are basically a super heavy $1400 sks in 308. For the same money, buy an sksfor fun, a Ruger American in 308 with a decent scope for accuracy/hunting, and an m1 garand for nostalgia instead.

Click to expand...

Runs with much of what I have heard. When I first got mine I did try a scope and while it gave my best groups the mounts sucked and always worked loose. Never tried the newer mounts and ran with the NM 2 rear sights which have done well by me. Today I spend more time on my old Armalite AR10(T) also open sights but purely a match rifle. Every now and then I still take out the M1A and still enjoy the rifle as much as the day I got it. I think what it comes down to is, even today, would I buy another and I have to say I would. Then too, I also enjoy my M1 Garand shooting also. Being a dinosaur isn't always easy but I do enjoy those rifles. My M1A is mostly surplus GI parts and I was pleased it shot so well and still does.

Ron

I also tried different scope mounts, nothing spectacular. your best accuracy from a m1a or even a Garand is going to come from building a repeatable prone with sling position. experienced hipower shooters like Bart can help with that.
...all that said a ar10 with a scope is easier to shoot with lackadaisical shooting habits like mine. dc.

i first met the m-14 over 50 years ago and i have to say i was not to impressed with it, but it grew on me over the next months and in the comming months and useing it in conditions that were less than prefect i came to love it. it fired when i pressed the trigger and i pressed the trigger alot and when the Shtf i knew i would not have to hit my target more than once to end the fight, and even when the target was behind reasonable cover it did the job. was it prefect, NO. and i did carry a m-16 but never warmed up to it like i did the m-14. so after many years i wanted a m-14, but didn,t want the hassle or cost to own one and looked up a ex condition 1983 springfield M1A as close to a m-14 as i could get. i have shot some MOA groups with selected reloads, but mostly shoot the standard 7.62x51 and am happy with the 1.5-2" groups from a rest. the 36" metal gong at 500 yards get rung pretty often. and i,m glad the old girl has been put back into service in the newest wars we are engaged in for the last 15 years or so. eastbank.

bersaguy said:

Couldn't say, but I lust badly for the scout squad in a walnut stock.

Click to expand...

Actually yes, the rifle was designed to be used with a scope but unfortunately most scope mounts are poorly designed for this rifle. I don't mean to be insulting but honestly you need to have a little mechanical know-how to install these mounts properly. Most people just crank all the screws to their recommended torque specs one at a time and then complain because the mount shifts. You need to work each screw down to spec in steps, just like torquing head bolts on an engine. Adjusting the mount screws in steps allows the mount to rock and move as it's being tightened, if you don't adjust it in steps then it will probably shift under recoil and the screws will tend to work loose.

The only two mounts that I recommend are Bassett and Sadlak. I've had my Sadlak on my Loaded model for many years now and I've never had it work loose. The Bassett is a no-brainer, in fact, people that have problems with that mount usually create their problems because it's so simple that they can't believe it's and so they over tighten the mounting bolt and strip it. The Sadlak can be finicky depending upon the quality of your receiver but more often than not you can simply install as recommended by the manufacturer with good results.

I will agree that you need a cheek rest for most scope installations and the best that I've found is made by Bradley. It goes on to the rifle without having to drill holes and it holds solidly.

Regardless of model or vintage, they just don't seem to make sense to me when the price and performance level is all brought to bear. I have some experience with them from the military- M14, M21, M25 variant, MK14, and EBR versions, as well as models from SA. Unless the acquisition is based on nostalgia because that is what you had issued in the 60's or it is used for some type of service rifle competition, I would advise against. Too many other alternatives for a mil based 308 gas gun.

Never a fan,I prefer AR-10 plarform. JMHO

I've had my Standard for about 4 years now, I always wanted one and found mine in a small gun shop where it had been on the shelf for much longer than 6 months. I got it for the dealer's cost. Mine shoots 1-1/2 to 2 MOA (and the fault of that is the loose nut behind the trigger, rather than an inaccurate rifle). I mounted a scope to mine, and I'd add a third mount to the ones macgrumpy mentioned. I'm using a Fulton DMR mount, and it's as solid as if it were welded on. I routinely shoot 300 yards with it, and can usually keep them inside the 7 ring, and I beat the heck out of the steel gong at 300. So far, maybe 1500 rounds through it, about 5 boxes Winchester 147 FMJ, but mostly my own reloads using LC brass and 168 SMK or AMAX. Hasn't malfunctioned once. I made my own cheek riser from heavy leather, it laces to the stock and is kept from shifting by the rear sling mount. I couldn't say whether it or my AR Grendel is my favorite. Both are great shooters.

Has anyone here bedded theirs? I gave it some thought and have a fully glass bedded M1 Garand but my M1A seemed to always shoot well enough I never bothered to bed it. A few years ago at a NC Gun Show I found a perfect original GI stock with all metal and I got it for $30 which I could not hand the guy quick enough. I also have a slightly oversize wood stock still in the white and that would be the one I would bed.

The M1A and the AR10(T)


Ron

That is a beautiful piece of wood on your M1A, Ron. I like the redder hue it has than the stock on mine.

Years ago I oil rubbed the stock to a nice luster. Thanks for the compliment.

Ron

I love my standard M1A. I've always wanted one. It was my desire to make it more accurate that got me into reloading.

With my hand loads, scope, Basset mount and Bradley cheek rest I can keep 5 shot groups at or better than 1 MOA.

Over 3,000 rounds through it now without a failure

I bought a new one about 3 months ago. Standard model with wood stock. Too costly to be available in my area so I ordered through Buds.

It is expensive, nearly $1400, and nobody buys one because it's the best, or most accurate, or lightest, or most modern .308 semi auto out there. Everybody already knows it isn't.

But it sure may be one of the coolest, and it's LOT of fun to shoot.

Beautiful rifle, as everyone knows. I'm no expert but fit and finish seem fine. The stock is a heavily stained walnut and very pretty. Action is smooth and it seems to lock up tight. So far as I can tell stock fit is as it should be.

A couple of points to note:

Accuracy was puzzling, the rifle strung horizontally at first (well, still does). The REAR SIGHT IS LOOSE, it wobbles side-to-side about .025" as best I can measure, way to much, and easily enough to matter.

The inner and outer barrel feed ramps (if that's the correct term) don't line too well, the inner ramps look like the barrel was screwed in a few degrees too much so they are shifted visibly left. I'm not sure this matters much but on a $1400 rifle they should be right.

I registered the warranty and e-mailed Springfield about the sight and ramps two or three weeks ago but haven't heard back yet, I suppose i'll have to call. The sight for sure should be repaired under their warranty.

After compensating for the loose sight, accuracy seems to do fine. I cannot really judge accuracy as I'm not a good enough shot long range, especially with iron sights. For me it's as accurate as a CMP special grade H&R Garand I have. As I and others have noted if you're looking for a target rifle this may not be the best choice.

I have not put a scope on it, may someday. I'd like to try an extended eye-relief, low-power scope mounted forward of the receiver like the Scout model allows, if the rail can be retrofitted to this rifle. For me that might be the best compromise.

Trigger pull is very good, way better than any stock AR I've seen. Slightly long but very smooth and light. A pleasant surprise.

Reliability has been excellent. I did have 2 failures to fire, but this was with some suspect steel cased TulAmmo ammo that has caused problem in other rifles as well. Everything else has been perfect.

I really like the semi-gloss wood stocks like the photo above and I'll be shining mine up as well.

I add also that for the price Springfield ought to spring for more than one 10-rd. mag, and they should include a basic sling. But this is nit-picking, I knew what was included when I order the rifle. I actually prefer the 10-rd. mags in general, the 20's stick out too far and get in the way. But to have the 'authentic' look, gotta get a 20. Checkmate mags are available for less than $30.

Overall, my opinion is that the rifle is overpriced, and for the money Springfield should spend a little more time and attention to detail when they build them. But there sure aren't any cheaper M-14 clones out there, and I wanted one and was willing pay the cost. Overall I'm glad I have it.

Reloadron

Has anyone here bedded theirs? I gave it some thought and have a fully glass bedded M1 Garand but my M1A seemed to always shoot well enough I never bothered to bed it.

Click to expand...

Years ago I fitted a Springfield Armory walnut stock to my brother's M1A and it was very close to being a drop-in fit. It didn't require much in the way of any other adjustments and it performed so well we decided there wasn't any need to glass bed the stock.

GBW, my early m1a(1983) was prefect when i got it and showed they had good quality controll then. get on their ass about the problems you have found and don,t get off ontill they take care of it and a phone call is the best way to get their attention, and don,t be shy. no company wants or needs negitive press out there about a product they make. keep us posted. eastbank.

I've had a love/hate thing going with a Standard for decades. It's fun, getting them accurate is.......um.....challenging.
Then there's keeping them accurate, which is whole other cans of worms.
Anybody tried the Tank's steel bedding block? IIRC, they'll only do this with McMillan stocks.

eastbank said:

GBW, my early m1a(1983) was prefect when i got it and showed they had good quality controll then. get on their ass about the problems you have found and don,t get off ontill they take care of it and a phone call is the best way to get their attention, and don,t be shy. no company wants or needs negitive press out there about a product they make. keep us posted. eastbank.

Click to expand...

Thanks and I agree. I was sorely tempted in 1983 and wish I had. Part of the reason your's is so good is that has many GI parts. I doubt any of mine are. I will post results from Springfield but I don't want to hijack the OPs thread.

Actually I'm not negative about SA, just reporting what I found for the OP. Having worked for corporations I know full well what happens when the propeller heads take over, as they always do. The folks who actually know what they're doing are too busy to spend time on the politics of keeping quality high. I digress.

gbw said:

Accuracy was puzzling, the rifle strung horizontally at first (well, still does). The REAR SIGHT IS LOOSE, it wobbles side-to-side about .025" as best I can measure, way to much, and easily enough to matter.

Click to expand...

New rifles should not leave home with a loose rear sight. The M1 Garand and The M14 (and M1A types) use the same rear sight if I am not mistaken. The windage knob is secured to the elevation pinion. The windage knob has two small tits on it which allow it to lock. While there are sight tightening tools for old loose sights you should not need one. If you have some leather or plastic jaw slip ring pliers secure the windage knob. While holding the windage knob try and tighten the screw in the center. That should eliminate any free play or wobble.





You are not the first to see issues with the newer rifles. Really sucks as people pay a good buck and deserve a good rifle in return.

Ron

GI parts aren't any better, it was the MilSpec inspection process that made the difference. Today's manufacturing capabilities are much better than they were in past years but the parts are not being inspected in a uniform manner, for the modern M1A rifle, no inspectors are being trained in an institutionalized way like the old MilSpec inspectors were. As a result all the dimensions and features can and do vary more than they did for the M14 rifles. Admittedly, since even the raw materials can vary more it's understood that some parts just aren't as good as they used to be, which is why companies like LRB came in to existence, they make their M14 clones as close to MilSpec standards as you will find anywhere - but their prices reflect that. You think $1400 is lot for one of these rifles? Try $2500 for a standard model and well over $4000 for a match rifle.