M1a Super match: your experience?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a Super Match that was built in '93. I've yet to scope mine. Currently I have the iron sights set for combat rather than target and am shooting out to 200-300 yards. I've considered scoping it, but I'm not really keen on the mounting options. As it is I intend to do my long range shooting with a Savage model 12 LRP in .260 Remington. I like my M1A Super Match with the iron sights (about the best iron sights ever made IMHO). If you were to scope yours I think it could be competitive to 800 yards. The Super Match is inherently accurate. It is a more rigid platform for the mighty .308 than the AR10 as far as I'm concerned. Enjoy! :D
 
Last edited:
I didn't buy the M1A because of the cost and most people considered the AR10 platform more accurate. I went with the AR10. I can't comment on the 800 yards, I don't have that available to me.
 
I'd go with a 308 AR for optics, long before I'd go with an M14 and I love the M14
 
I have an M1A NM. Basset low mount and Bradley adjustable cheek rest.
The Basset is easy for off and on. Sadlak is another good mount.
Get the best MilDot scope you can afford. Save for it if necessary.
I mostly shoot the iron sights, while I still can.
I also prefer my stocks to be wood.
 
Last edited:
My SuperMatch was made in 1994, and has served with total reliability in Service Rifle matches and just fun shooting since. The accuracy is excellent, no problem reloading with good brass ( I use the sturdy IMI Match cases). A simple strap-on cheek pad solves the problem of cheek-weld for scoped use, while removing the pad leaves the best iron sights ever put on a battle rifle ready for use. A lot of rubbish has been written about the M1A being impossible to use with a scope, mostly by people who own AR10 clones. 60 years after it's first issue the M14 is still serving as a designated marksman weapon, while the $5,000+ Knight sniper ARs have been recalled because they don't work. Your money, your choice, but handle both rifles and if possible shoot them before you decide. 'Features' have lead many people into many poor decisions, the actual product is what counts. And using opinions from the Internet to decide a purchase of several thousand dollars is just as foolish.

IMHO
 
My opinion is to be careful buying a M1A Supermatch. I bought one brand new several years ago and it was real POS. Now I like the M14 clone, and I have owned 4 M1As. 3 have had quality problems. The Supermatch was a real disappointment. If you search my user name on this sight I am pretty sure I have posted the particulars in the past.

So I like the platform IF IRON SIGHTS ARE THE INTENT. My M1A Standard is one of my favorite guns other than the fact it stretches brass about .020" per firing. My 3 other M1As did not stretch brass... just another QC issue it appears. My Standard shoots better than my Supermatch did.

Now I also have a M&P 10 and it is every bit as accurate if not more so than my Supermatch, and much more appropriate for optics.

I shoot matches with a guy who uses a Supermatch and he has complained about problems. I think one of the trigger components broke some time back, and the last time out he said something in the gas block / gas system failed - cracked or broke.

Personally after having a bad quality experiences 3 times out of 4 with SAI, I won't be buying any more M1As. I would look to another manufacturer for a M14 clone.
 
Last edited:
It's built for shooting across-the-course. I'm sure it'll shoot well with a scope after you get a good mount and a cheek rest. The stock is massive, and the rifle is heavy and balances poorly until you get 1-2 lbs of lead under the buttplate--so, 13-14lbs empty with iron sights. If you're going to replace the stock, you might be better off at looking at a different model, since a good portion of the gunsmithing you've paid for goes into the stock and the rear lugged receiver.
 
Been thinking about this and here is my take. I have both a M1A match and my AR-10 match. Twenty years ago I was screwing around trying to put a scope on the M1A, maybe mounts have improved but the rifle simply does not lend itself well by design to having a scope fixed to it. I am fine with that as the rifle was only shot out o 500 meters and the match iron sights did fine.

If I were looking for the rifle to scope? That would be my AR-10 simply because by design the rifle lends itself o being scoped. The AR-10 also lends itself well to iron sights for match and distance where the iron hooded match sights on my M1A are as good as it gets.

I can't do this with my M1A:
AR10%202.png

AR%2010%20Scope.png

Depending on what you want and how much flexibility I would suggest the AR-10 for the reasons pictured above. That said both are excellent rifles and I enjoy shooting either of mine on any given day.

Ron
 
Scoping an M1A Super Match? - Don't ...

Having gone thru this exercise many years ago, I'd advise against scoping any M1A. These rifles can be very accurate with the irons as-is, assuming the factory hasn't let a POS sample escape out the door.

My Super Match has an '86 receiver and is a verified Glenn Nelson build during the era he built SMs for S.A. It was always hyper-accurate and scoping it only brought out its consistent sub-MOA potential when shooting match ammo (168gn Fed. GMM).

But I found scoping it always to be an awkward proposition, and most mounts I tried were crapola. In recent years better ones were developed due to the U.S. military's desire to use M14s as LR 7.62 DMRs in the 'Stan.

If you do choose to scope yours, DO NOT go cheap on the mount. Get something like a Sadlak or a Bassett.

Regardless, scoped M1As quickly become ungainly, heavy (especially with the obligatory bi-pod), and require the stock to be modified with a super-high cheek pad to give you anywhere near proper cheekweld and eye position relative to a particular scope's eye-relief - unless you've got a giraffe-neck. The issue walnut stock is set up for iron-sighted shooting ... and, like the M1 Garand from which it is descended, the M1A/M14 has the best iron sights of any 30-cal military rifle in the world.

Long story short: I tired of trying to overcome the awkwardness of transforming my SM into it a semi-auto "sniper rifle," and returned it to its original configuration as an iron-sighted-only (NM sights, by the way) across-the-course rifle.

My 7.62 AR, an LMT LM8, is much easier to scope, and shooting-wise it feels much better, but even then the 7.62/308 ARs get heavy fast when you start adding "stuff" to them.


1986 S.A. SM.
SW2.jpg
 
Last edited:
agtman's post and picture of his rifle reminded me of something I had forgotten to mention. Be it M1A or AR-10 rifle, when you scope it consider the cheek rest and make sure you get a cheek rest to match the scope height. :)

Ron
 
Interesting to hear about QC I had a great experience with two other M1a and for the money especially I thought the Supermatch would be good as gold.
 
Call me whatever but there are three rifles I will never ever scope:

1. M14/M1A
2. SKS
3. Winchester 94

Besides the last Supermatch M1A I shot maybe 10 years ago would shoot 1-1.5 MOA out to 600 yards with Federal Gold Medal 168 with the excellent open sights.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
 
In terms of scoped accuracy, I think it's much harder and more expensive to achieve it with an M14 pattern than an AR10 pattern.

If you're going to spend the money, I've personally seen more Fultons than Springfields that shot lights out.
 
Can an M1A shoot well out to 800 yards, yes they can and do quite regularly, I've got a Loaded model that I've shot out to 1100 yards very successfully.

Springfield may or may not have a quality control issue but I doubt it, I suspect that most of the people having problems don't really understand how to properly set one up for long range work. With a little research you will find that only about three brands of scope mounts work reliably; Sadlak, ARMS, and Bassett. I use a Sadlak because once mounted it wont move (if you mount it correctly and the receiver has the proper dimensions). But the Sadlak takes the most work to mount and it takes the most time to remove, once it's in place it's pretty much a permanent attachment. The ARMS is also a little difficult to mount and it's permanent but it's the lowest mount available. The Bassett is the easiest to mount, comes off quickly, and is very dependable.

Out of the box any AR style rifle will be as accurate or better than the M1A rifles and it's cheaper and easier to tune an AR plus you can adjust the fit and feel of an AR much better. The straight line stock, modular design, and barrel attachment process makes the AR far easier to work with and more comfortable to use with a scope. The M1A is much tougher to make work but like any rifle it can be adjusted and tuned to work well at long range as long as you don't mind spending the money and time on it. While the Super Match is a better rifle mechanically than the other M1A models it's actually more economical to buy a Loaded model and tune it as necessary. You can also go to a manufacturer such as LRB and have them make an accurized rifle for you that is probably going to be a precise machine without comparison to a mass production rifle from Springfield.
 
macgrumpy said:
Can an M1A shoot well out to 800 yards, yes they can and do quite regularly, I've got a Loaded model that I've shot out to 1100 yards very successfully.

Springfield may or may not have a quality control issue but I doubt it, I suspect that most of the people having problems don't really understand how to properly set one up for long range work. With a little research you will find that only about three brands of scope mounts work reliably; Sadlak, ARMS, and Bassett. I use a Sadlak because once mounted it wont move (if you mount it correctly and the receiver has the proper dimensions). But the Sadlak takes the most work to mount and it takes the most time to remove, once it's in place it's pretty much a permanent attachment. The ARMS is also a little difficult to mount and it's permanent but it's the lowest mount available. The Bassett is the easiest to mount, comes off quickly, and is very dependable.

Out of the box any AR style rifle will be as accurate or better than the M1A rifles and it's cheaper and easier to tune an AR plus you can adjust the fit and feel of an AR much better. The straight line stock, modular design, and barrel attachment process makes the AR far easier to work with and more comfortable to use with a scope. The M1A is much tougher to make work but like any rifle it can be adjusted and tuned to work well at long range as long as you don't mind spending the money and time on it. While the Super Match is a better rifle mechanically than the other M1A models it's actually more economical to buy a Loaded model and tune it as necessary. You can also go to a manufacturer such as LRB and have them make an accurized rifle for you that is probably going to be a precise machine without comparison to a mass production rifle from Springfield.

Oi... I don't know that I'd ever recommend a loaded to someone not intending to do much tweaking. In fact, the last conversation I had with someone about M1As from SAI pushed them heavily to the M-21 (if they can find one) or the National Matches. Only way I'd recommend a Loaded is if they intend on putting it in a chassis and don't want to build the rifle from parts.

That's how I did with my Troy MCS M1A Loaded and it is finally starting to shoot worth a dang. Right now, 175gr SMK's come out in the 1" to 1.25" range for 10 shot groups. I've had maybe a handful of sub MOA 5 shot groups but don't like counting those as the rifle seems to be consistently in the 1-1.25 MOA range when run hard.

Truthfully, an M1A can be a very accurate rifle if properly built and tuned. The Douglas and Kreiger heavy barreled monstrosities shoot some absolutely amazing groups for a semi auto rifle with an 80 year old action but you trade maneuverability and handiness with that setup. If you have any mechanical aptitude, they really are not that difficult to assemble from parts. Short of that, if you want a standard configuration stock, the NM is pretty tough to beat. Most are in the 1" to 1.5" range out of the box for accuracy. You wont start seeing sub MOA M1A's until you hit the Douglas or Kreiger heavy barreled rifles and at that point it'd be cheaper to build one of those custom then to buy one.

As for the AR10, well, if you've shot an AR15, then you understand how an AR10 functions and the benefits that befit the action (when viewed from the standpoint of semi-auto's). It is difficult to find an M1A that will shoot as well, for the same money, as an AR10. You will trade A LOT of joy in buying "another AR" though. Personally, I've shot some 40 odd AR15's and while each one has it's own quirks and is reliable, I can't help but hate how "cheap" they feel in hand and how unfun they are to shoot precision with. The M1 Garand Action rifles just have a sense of purpose to their operation and a level of refinement and character that no other firearm I've shot really has. I wont trade my M1A for anything. I may go through about 90 different setups to find the one I want, and I know I've spent too much money on mine, but hot dang, it is a fun and sweet shooting gun and the 1-1.25 MOA accuracy with handloads is more accurate than the .308 round is really capable of being used for. That 175gr pill will barely make it to 1000 yards and I'm looking at minute of man at that range if I do my part.

That said, an M1A is a love affair that you have to experience, and if you haven't shot one, you wont know if you'll love her or hate her. I look as the AR10 as a bigger and heavier AR15. Mechanically accurate, but really a snooze to shoot.

I love mine:
IMGP2940.jpg
 
I don't know a heck of a lot about AR10's.... but, given the 800yd part... I do know that the M1A is "limited" to a 175gr bullet.... and the M1A doesn't like a hot load.....so trying to get to 800yds without going subsonic would be impossible.

If the AR10 can handle a 190gr+ bullet and a hotter load... then you might want to consider that as well.
 
I would love to have a Super Match, but I have the Standard M1A and love it.

I also shoot it scoped almost exclusively. The Basset mount and Bradley cheek rest make it an effective platform. With the Basset mount, 1 bolt allows you to remove the scope and shoot irons, then go back to scope and maintain zero. I'm sub MOA with my hand loads. The only thing I've done to this rifle is shim the gas system and have the trigger re-worked.

598da3b8-81dd-4cc2-8b55-6e1fa756a747.jpg

I have an AR15 but do not have an AR10 so I can't provide a comparison. I will say that I've never fired a sweeter shooting rife than the M1A. There's no buffer spring "boing". It is heavy however and a bit quirky. I believe that's one of the reasons people love it. You invest time in learning it's idiosyncrasies and it rewards you with results down range. It's also not just another black rifle on the firing line.

I've put several thousand rounds down range without a single malfunction. SAI has a lifetime, no BS warranty, so there's always that piece of mind. As I tend to say in these "either or" threads, my answer is "both" :)
 
I don't know a heck of a lot about AR10's.... but, given the 800yd part... I do know that the M1A is "limited" to a 175gr bullet.... and the M1A doesn't like a hot load.....so trying to get to 800yds without going subsonic would be impossible.



If the AR10 can handle a 190gr+ bullet and a hotter load... then you might want to consider that as well.


However: despite the big thing people have about the heavy bullets for long range, the Palma Match out to 1,000 yards is shot with no more than a 155 grain load. The M1A easily handles the 155 grain A-Max at 2800fps, which as the previous poster has shown can be sub-MOA. So 800 yards should be a piece of cake.
Honestly, some of the arguments against the M1A in this thread have a kind of desperate feel of people trying to convince themselves they made the right choice buying an AR. If you don't mind aluminum and plastic, the ARs are fine appliances. If you want a steel and wood rifle that you can be proud of, the M1A is a good choice.
 
bfoosh006 said:
I don't know a heck of a lot about AR10's.... but, given the 800yd part... I do know that the M1A is "limited" to a 175gr bullet.... and the M1A doesn't like a hot load.....so trying to get to 800yds without going subsonic would be impossible.

If the AR10 can handle a 190gr+ bullet and a hotter load... then you might want to consider that as well.

The M1A is no more limited than an AR10 is in bullet weight if you buy a National Match or a Supermatch or M21. All three have a piston that is grooved to allow for heavier bullets. If it bothers you that much a $50 Schuster Adjustable Gas Plug fixes all the issues with heavier bullets.

The .308 WIN caliber is what is limiting long range performance, not the M1A. A 175gr is really pushing what the caliber is capable of ballistically. That said, a 175gr SMK load moving faster than 2550fps (common load is right around 2600) will be supersonic to just past 1000 yards and it transitions into the subsonic just fine. I don't know where you get the idea the M1A is the limiting part of range... it's the cartridge.
 
Actually keeping a 175gr bullet, fired from an M1A, supersonic beyond 800 yards is quite easy, my 178gr Hornady load will hold supersonic out to just under 900 yards. While you will have to push the bullet as fast as you can, the 175gr Berger VLD will hold supersonic speeds out to 1000 yards. The secret is the right powder, a maximum volume case, and the right bullet. Most M1A long range shooters try to maintain a muzzle velocity of at least 2640 fps and they'll get very good performance at 1000 yards. Some use gas plugs that vent off excessive gas and/or grooved gas pistons, I don't use either but I use QuickLoad software to estimate pressures and velocities and it helps me keep even my hottest loads within SAAMI limits.
 
When scoped, can this rifle hold its own against AR10 type rifles to 800 yds?

Yes; and maybe then some. Providing that M1A has all the right parts correctly fitted. I doubt there's more than 3 or 4 people left in the USA that can build one that shoots that well these days.

The best of them in their heyday at service rifle matches would test 3 to 4 inches at 600 yards with good handloads or commercial match ammo with new cases. At 800, they would test 5 to 6 inches. But fired from machine rests (accuracy cradles) as humans don't hold them as repeatable as a mechanical device. Reloaded cases from them rarely shot as accurate as their case heads were pressed out of square by out of square bolt faces; nobody ever squared M1A (nor M14NM) bolt faces up relative to the chamber axis.

It was the better accuracy and scores shot in long range NRA service rifle matches that led the US Army Marksmanship Unit to convince the NRA to allow AR10 rifles in .308 Win be used. The Garands and M1As typically shot better scores at 1000 yards than AR platforms shooting the .223 Rem round. The AMU no longer had M14NM rifles to use and they were tired of being beat in competition. They did well in the 2012 Nationals winning and setting records with their AR10's. Too bad there was no team using 7.62 NATO Garands or M1A's to equal the combined scores the 4 people on the AMU team produced. Individual scores with either the AR or M1/M1A platforms are equal for all practical purposes.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is that much voodoo in the M14/M1A actions these days. The biggest thing impacting accuracy in an M1A/M14 after the barrel is the stock fore end pressure at the front ferrule and how consistent that is. It may be sacrilegious to say this, but modern chassis systems have come so far as to eliminate that requirement entirely. The Sage EBR, Troy MCS, and Blackfeather.CA stocks all free float the barrels and lock the action firmly and consistently in ways that no competition shooter is allowed to use. There is a reason a lot of the super accurate M14/M1A's used in competition reside in huge, heavy, fiberglass stocks or thick walnut stocks with carbon fiber arrow shafts bedded into the fore end channel. The "as issued" and "must fit in this mold" have been the ultimate killer of innovation for the platform for decades.

That said, when you properly address the issue at the front of the stock on these rifles, they can be made silly accurate. Companies are now working on aluminum bedding blocks that require only minor inletting of the stock to install and produce similar results to a traditional bedding job without the constant hassle of maintaining that bedding. Choose a good barrel, have good fore end tension, and everything else produces very minor improvements in accuracy.

I'm 99% sure if all I did was drop my loaded into the MCS chassis, I'd be shooting basically the same groups. I chose to do the other things for consistency's sake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top