Springfield Armory M1A rifle 308 Winchester

[Reloadron]

So it is sort of like the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16 which has the fully auto switch to semi?

In that respect yes. Actually you can buy an original GI M14 rifle capable of full auto select fire. Just find a class 3 dealer, fill out the paper work, buy the federal tax stamp, jump through some hoops and buy the rifle. A good one runs about $40,000 so save your pennies. The same is true of an M16 GI rifle but again, they aren't cheap.

Anyway the M1A is to the M14 about what the AR15 is to the M16.

Ron

 

[Jackal]

I saw those things. Maybe they appeal to some shooters which is well and fine but if my dogs had faces as ugly as that rifle I would shave their butts and walk them backwards. They remind me of the Norinco NHM90 guns that poured in during the early 90s with the thumbhole stocks. However, the Norinco guns looked good.

I agree, they are homely, but for about a third what the M1A goes for, its kinda hard to dislike them. Especially since most owners have reported accuracy that seems to exceed what most standard M1A's can do out of the box (many owners have reported 1moa with quality ammo). I like my VEPR .308, but it may have to share a bunk with the homely Yugo pretty soon...

 

[stinger 327]

M1A!!! My favorite gun all my life. I finally saved enough to buy one 25 years ago, before Clinton's assault rifle ban. $1500 for the standard model. Lordy does that rifle shoot. I have no problem hitting at any distance with the stock sights. The M1A sights are truly a marvel. Extremely precision and effective. Very easy to see. I used the rifle for my primary deer gun for years and years. (I now use a single shot 45/70 with peep sights because there are no long shots in the mountains where I live.)

My Springfield has never failed to fire. Or failed to feed or eject. IMO, a Springfield M1A is the best looking small arms weapon ever made, and the most effective. Zero reasons not to have one. When the terrorists come to call, I'm ready with that rifle.

Lots of folks put a scope on them, which means some kind of stock re-configuration to get your head up high enough. I think a scope on an M1A is like wearing a wig that doesn't fit. An abomination. Unless your eyesight is very, very bad, you don't need a scope. This is a rifle made to shoot "as is." I mean if you can hit out to 600 yards with the sights provided, why use a scope? The click adjustments on the Springfield sights are very precise. At the range, find out how many clicks are needed to adjust for different distances. Click it back down for 100 yard shooting with full confidence that the number of clicks you counted earlier for 300 yards or whatever distance will be exactly the correct number.

Recoil is negligible, eaten up by the gas operated system. One shot after another, up to 20, is an awesome amount of firepower in .308.

I settled on Federal match ammo 168 grain for best accuracy. Golf ball size groups are easy at 100 yards with that ammo. Factory ball white box ammo is also amazingly accurate.

I've read that the Springfield rifle parts are interchangeable with the G.I. M14. But after thousands of rounds out of mine, I've never had to change a part or do anything to it except clean it. The Springfield M1A is a lifetime weapon. Get one before the liberals say you can't.

Is the Springfield Armory M1A an easy rifle to break down and clean?
Is there any relationship between the Mini-14 .223/5.56 and the M-14?

 

[Reloadron]

Is the Springfield Armory M1A an easy rifle to break down and clean?
Is there any relationship between the Mini-14 .223/5.56 and the M-14?

Yes, the M1A is easy to clean. Remember it is based on the M14 and all military rifles are easy to break down and clean.

The only relationship between the Mini 14 and M1A is the Mini 14 looks just like (well close anyway) a M 14 which as we know the M1A looks just like. The Mini 14 looks like a miniature M1A which looks just like a M14 less select fire capability. Make sense?

The Mini 14 and Mini 30 look alike also and the only difference is the Mini 14 is chambered in 223 and the Mini 30 is chambered in the 7.62 x 39 Russian cartridge.

Ron

 

[MistWolf]

...the rifle's receiver was never designed for a scope mount...

All production M14s were made to take a scope mount. It just wasn't very well designed

The 7.62 x 51 NATO cartridge and the 308 Winchester cartridge are for all intents and purposes one in the same

Fixed it for ya

I have a National Match flavor M1A which I have had about 20 years and I very much like the rifle.

Ron

You know how some things are covered in Awesome sauce? The M14 is the source of Awesome Sauce

 

[Reloadron]

All production M14s were made to take a scope mount. It just wasn't very well designed



Fixed it for ya



You know how some things are covered in Awesome sauce? The M14 is the source of Awesome Sauce

Thank you for the corrections.

You know how some things are covered in Awesome sauce? The M14 is the source of Awesome Sauce

Don't know that I would take it that far.

Ron

 

[stinger 327]

In the movie "Full Metal Jacket" the rifles they were training on at gun range, weren't those M-1A's or M-14?

 

[stinger 327]

Yes, the M1A is easy to clean. Remember it is based on the M14 and all military rifles are easy to break down and clean.

The only relationship between the Mini 14 and M1A is the Mini 14 looks just like (well close anyway) a M 14 which as we know the M1A looks just like. The Mini 14 looks like a miniature M1A which looks just like a M14 less select fire capability. Make sense?

The Mini 14 and Mini 30 look alike also and the only difference is the Mini 14 is chambered in 223 and the Mini 30 is chambered in the 7.62 x 39 Russian cartridge.

Ron

In the movie "Full Metal Jacket" the rifles they were training on at gun range, weren't those M-1A's or M-14?

 

[dvdcrr]

Ive got an m1a. I would like to put m1garand sights on it. I can hit 10-12" steel plates at 200 m.

 

[Tommygunn]

In the movie "Full Metal Jacket" the rifles they were training on at gun range, weren't those M-1A's or M-14?

The military used M-14s. Some M-14s had the parts that made it full auto removed. Many soldiers had problems controlling the M-14 in full auto as "walk up" made the muzzle end want to rise up and start shooting at aircraft. Only burly soldiers could handle it easily.
The rifles in the movie should have been M-14s but they might have not been able to switch to fulla auto, and thus they'd look like M1As.

 

[stinger 327]

600 yards easily. 1000 yards for the skilled among us.

At these long ranges wouldn't the M1A be considered in the class of sniper rifles?

 

[stinger 327]

Ive got an m1a. I would like to put m1garand sights on it. I can hit 10-12" steel plates at 200 m.

Isn't the M1 Garand an older battlefield rifle? Wouldn't the peep sights on M1A be better or improved over the M1Garand sight?

 

[Reloadron]

In the movie "Full Metal Jacket" the rifles they were training on at gun range, weren't those M-1A's or M-14?

They were M14 rifles. If you look at the Internet Movie Firearms Database and some scenes from the movie the selectors are plainly visible on the rifles used in the movie.

At these long ranges wouldn't the M1A be considered in the class of sniper rifles?

The M21 and M25 are accurized sniper rifle versions, built to closer tolerances than the standard M14. These are the more standard sniper rifle variants of the M14.

The M21 Rifle.

The M25 Rifle.

Isn't the M1 Garand an older battlefield rifle? Wouldn't the peep sights on M1A be better or improved over the M1Garand sight?

Yes, with the M1 Garand dating back pre WWII. Both rifles used an aperture rear sight. Both also had NM (National Match) versions with improved rear sights. The NM versions were (are) a hooded aperture. So, the M1 Garand and M14 have the same standard rear sight. Well I am pretty sure they do. My M1A has the NM sights so I can't directly compare with my M1 Garand with a standard sight. Maybe someone else knows if the apertures are in fact different. The M14 can be viewed as the spawn of the M1 Garand.

Ron

 

[MEHavey]

Does this M1A rifle that shoots Winchester 308 have more
range and power than a 30.06 rifle?

The M14(M1A)/7.62 NATO (aka the 308Win for all practical purposes)
was a very deliberate duplication of the Garand/30-06/military load
-- in a shorter action with a shorter case.

That said, 30-06 has an inherently larger case capacity and can therefore be
handloaded to higher performance than the original military 30-06/7.62 specs
-- when used in bolt action rifles.


.

 

[stinger 327]

They were M14 rifles. If you look at the Internet Movie Firearms Database and some scenes from the movie the selectors are plainly visible on the rifles used in the movie.



The M21 and M25 are accurized sniper rifle versions, built to closer tolerances than the standard M14. These are the more standard sniper rifle variants of the M14.

The M21 Rifle.

The M25 Rifle.



Yes, with the M1 Garand dating back pre WWII. Both rifles used an aperture rear sight. Both also had NM (National Match) versions with improved rear sights. The NM versions were (are) a hooded aperture. So, the M1 Garand and M14 have the same standard rear sight. Well I am pretty sure they do. My M1A has the NM sights so I can't directly compare with my M1 Garand with a standard sight. Maybe someone else knows if the apertures are in fact different. The M14 can be viewed as the spawn of the M1 Garand.

Ron

The M21 and M25 are accurized sniper rifle versions, built to closer tolerances than the standard M14. These are the more standard sniper rifle variants of the M14.

The M21 Rifle.

The M25 Rifle.
So as a civilian what are the prices of the M1A, M21 and M25 typically

 

[boricua9mm]

If you want to put some numbers on it all...

M1A (iron sights, stripped down standard model): ~$1300

M21 equivalent (scope mount, bedded stock, unitized gas cylinder, NM gas piston, NM spring guide, trigger job, National Match barrel upgrade, *optics not included*) ~$2400-$3,000

M25 equivalent (all of the M21 features, but done on a bedded McMillan stock, *optics not included*): ~$3,600-$4,000

These numbers may be off in the current market. I stopped paying attention once I reached the well-traveled crossroads of price and performance.

We have lots of searchable threads here on this subject; I've been down this road myself. I've gotten well underway to a modern rendition of the M21, only to find out that these rifles are money pits in every sense of the word. The deeper you delve into them, the more of a PITA they become. The more you modify them, the less they lend themselves to field maintenance. Keeping everything repeatable is an exercise in witchcraft.

If you want an M14/DMR facsimile, then only that will scratch that itch for you. If you want the best performance, then there are much better options that can be had for the same or less money, and offer much more in the way of long-term sustainability.

They have an interesting history, that's for sure. Lots of people will champion the rifle for its reappearance in the Middle East. Within the battle rifle concept, it performs pretty damn well. Turning it into a sniper rifle is an exercise in frustration. At the end of the day, the writing is on the wall for the M14. Hints can be found in examining the current trend in 7.62x51 rifle contracts.

 

[Reloadron]

As a civilian I doubt you can easily buy the sniper versions I mentioned. You can buy a M1A match and add the scope package and get there that way.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/m1a-series/

You would be looking at the NM (National Match or the Super Match versions. You are looking at rifles costing around $1,800 and up to pushing $3,000 but I am unsure about pricing.

<EDIT> Thanks to boricua9mm for the added great info and pricing. Save your pennies. </EDIT>

Ron

 

[d2wing]

In 1967 I qualified with an M-14. We shot at different ranges and different positions out to 600 meters. At sighting I put 9 out of 10 shots in 1 hole. Around 1/2 inch MOA. At the range 5 or 6 of us could hit the 600 meter pop-up target from a prone position. Standard issue M-14. I could not do it now because of eye sight unless I were allowed a scope. At that time they had converted them to semi auto only. Before I went to Vietnam I had to qualify with the M-16. Those were also very accurate. I agree with the M-14 being was awesome and head and shoulders better than any other military rifle out there. I have never shot a civilian model. I doubt they are as good but I dunno.

 

[stinger 327]

If you want to put some numbers on it all...

M1A (iron sights, stripped down standard model): ~$1300

M21 equivalent (scope mount, bedded stock, unitized gas cylinder, NM gas piston, NM spring guide, trigger job, National Match barrel upgrade, *optics not included*) ~$2400-$3,000

M25 equivalent (all of the M21 features, but done on a bedded McMillan stock, *optics not included*): ~$3,600-$4,000

These numbers may be off in the current market. I stopped paying attention once I reached the well-traveled crossroads of price and performance.

We have lots of searchable threads here on this subject; I've been down this road myself. I've gotten well underway to a modern rendition of the M21, only to find out that these rifles are money pits in every sense of the word. The deeper you delve into them, the more of a PITA they become. The more you modify them, the less they lend themselves to field maintenance. Keeping everything repeatable is an exercise in witchcraft.

If you want an M14/DMR facsimile, then only that will scratch that itch for you. If you want the best performance, then there are much better options that can be had for the same or less money, and offer much more in the way of long-term sustainability.

They have an interesting history, that's for sure. Lots of people will champion the rifle for its reappearance in the Middle East. Within the battle rifle concept, it performs pretty damn well. Turning it into a sniper rifle is an exercise in frustration. At the end of the day, the writing is on the wall for the M14. Hints can be found in examining the current trend in 7.62x51 rifle contracts.

Money pits? I am sure though M1A must be more accurate and shoot better than my Mini-14 195 series I bought in 1998 because after 6 shots it cannot group. The bullets are all over the place and very erratic. No pattern. It must be that the barrel heats up and that ruins the accuracy on this Ranch Mini-14 with scope and beautiful laminated stock. Can't even hit the paper at 100 yards.

 

[stinger 327]

If you want to put some numbers on it all...

M1A (iron sights, stripped down standard model): ~$1300

M21 equivalent (scope mount, bedded stock, unitized gas cylinder, NM gas piston, NM spring guide, trigger job, National Match barrel upgrade, *optics not included*) ~$2400-$3,000

M25 equivalent (all of the M21 features, but done on a bedded McMillan stock, *optics not included*): ~$3,600-$4,000

These numbers may be off in the current market. I stopped paying attention once I reached the well-traveled crossroads of price and performance.

We have lots of searchable threads here on this subject; I've been down this road myself. I've gotten well underway to a modern rendition of the M21, only to find out that these rifles are money pits in every sense of the word. The deeper you delve into them, the more of a PITA they become. The more you modify them, the less they lend themselves to field maintenance. Keeping everything repeatable is an exercise in witchcraft.

If you want an M14/DMR facsimile, then only that will scratch that itch for you. If you want the best performance, then there are much better options that can be had for the same or less money, and offer much more in the way of long-term sustainability.

They have an interesting history, that's for sure. Lots of people will champion the rifle for its reappearance in the Middle East. Within the battle rifle concept, it performs pretty damn well. Turning it into a sniper rifle is an exercise in frustration. At the end of the day, the writing is on the wall for the M14. Hints can be found in examining the current trend in 7.62x51 rifle contracts.

Now these guns are brand new right? They are still made unlike the M-1 Carbine that is not new. The standard model M1A in that price range of 1,300 maybe to $2,000 max is my price range.

 

[mljdeckard]

I had one, and I don't miss it. There's not a thing wrong with them, but it was going to be too much of a project to turn it from what it was (a iron-sights battle rifle) to what I wanted. (A distance rifle.) I had a mount that blocked the iron sights too much to be able to use them, and I needed a raised comb to be able to use the scope without it cutting into my eyebrow.

Switched to an AR-10, it makes everything easier, including re-barreling it for .260 Rem.

 

[stinger 327]

I had one, and I don't miss it. There's not a thing wrong with them, but it was going to be too much of a project to turn it from what it was (a iron-sights battle rifle) to what I wanted. (A distance rifle.) I had a mount that blocked the iron sights too much to be able to use them, and I needed a raised comb to be able to use the scope without it cutting into my eyebrow.

Switched to an AR-10, it makes everything easier, including re-barreling it for .260 Rem.

If you want a rifle for distance wouldn't something like a scoped Tikka 3 Lite made by Sato a bolt action 30.06 be a better more affordable choice?

 

[Reloadron]

If you want a rifle for distance wouldn't something like a scoped Tikka 3 Lite made by Sato a bolt action 30.06 be a better more affordable choice?

Here is what I believe you will discover. Rifles like the M1A or even the M1 Garand are rifles that share a love / hate relationship with most shooters. There are shooters who love the rifles and those who buy one and within a year sell the rifle for numerous reasons. mljdeckard in post #46 is a good example. While he doesn't hate the rifle but saw it as not what he really wanted. There are others who buy these rifles with a specific purpose in mind, they may be members of a club that host and participates in NRA rifle matches. Different matches require different equipment under different rules. So if I want to shoot NRA Service Rifle I won't be doing with Tika T3 for example.

So what it really comes down to is a shooter buying a rifle for their intended application and use combined with their individual taste.

Ron

 

[highpower]

Yes, with the M1 Garand dating back pre WWII. Both rifles used an aperture rear sight. Both also had NM (National Match) versions with improved rear sights. The NM versions were (are) a hooded aperture. So, the M1 Garand and M14 have the same standard rear sight. Well I am pretty sure they do. My M1A has the NM sights so I can't directly compare with my M1 Garand with a standard sight. Maybe someone else knows if the apertures are in fact different. The M14 can be viewed as the spawn of the M1 Garand.

The sights on a M14/M1A are exactly the same as the sights on a Garand.

I am sure though M1A must be more accurate and shoot better than my Mini-14 195 series I bought in 1998 because after 6 shots it cannot group. The bullets are all over the place and very erratic. No pattern. It must be that the barrel heats up and that ruins the accuracy on this Ranch Mini-14 with scope and beautiful laminated stock. Can't even hit the paper at 100 yards.

Trying to compare a Mini 14 to a M1A is like comparing a cheap car to a luxury sedan. Their is no comparison except that they both shoot bullets. You get a little closer if you compare the M14/M1A to other 7.62X51 battle rifles of the era, like the G3 and FAL. I have owned all of them and hands down, the sights on a M1A are better than the others. Maybe because of that, I find that the M1A is easier to shoot accurately at longer distances using the issued sights.

I had one, and I don't miss it. There's not a thing wrong with them, but it was going to be too much of a project to turn it from what it was (a iron-sights battle rifle) to what I wanted. (A distance rifle.) I had a mount that blocked the iron sights too much to be able to use them, and I needed a raised comb to be able to use the scope without it cutting into my eyebrow.

The M14 was never designed to be a long range precision rifle. Their intended purpose was the same as the rifle they replaced (M1 Garand) to be a battle rifle pure and simple. The fact that with some tweaking they can be made to shoot well at longer ranges is a tribute to the way they were designed and manufactured. Long after they were pronounced dead as a service rifle, they keep being dusted off and are brought back to life as a specialty weapon.

I have a early one that is truly one of my grail guns that I will never sell.

 

[PBR Streetgang]

Shot matches with a M1-a .With a bit of practice (bedded stock and NM sights),you shouldn't have much of a problem hitting a man-sized target at 600 meters with open sights...