AR15 or M1A1

[Greenmtnboy66]

Well it's time to circle the wagons boys.
Did my four for king and country and have shot both but that was twenty years ago.
Can I get some feed back on what yall feel about both fire arms?
price accuracy etc....
wil be relaoding my own rounds etc....

[teddy12b]

Wow, do you know what you just started.  Threads like this usually make about 7 pages with 4 of them being between the same usual hard headed people going back and forth.

I've always bought AR's because they are less money than M1A's and I've never read or heard of a $1500 or less M1A being able to shoot less than 1 1/2moa at 100 yards off the shelf.  I'm happy with AR's, and I've had one in 308 that was great too!

[Old Syko]

Wow, do you know what you just started.  Threads like this usually make about 7 pages with 4 of them being between the same usual hard headed people going back and forth.

SHOOTALL WHERE ARE YOU?   

I ain't gettin into another one of these.  It's a lose lose situation.

[Dee]

I have had both. Accuracy? About the same. Actual power? 308   Range? 308 for actual killing power at extreme ranges, but do you want to engage or avoid?   Portability? Without question the AR15 and ammo is included. Have used both tactically, and hands down I would choose the AR15 for day in and day out carry, along with home defense.
That's my opinion based on my experience.

[mcwoodduck]

I know you want if for home but my answer is what else?
Are you going to hunt and what?
are you going to target shoot like the military matches?
are you going to compete like three gun matches?

308 has it's advantages as well as the rifle.
The cool thing about the AR15 is that you can just change upper and you have a completely different rifle to do other things.
223.
16" flat top with red dot or hollow sight for house.  You can also clamp on other accessories like a light (if your one of the light on the gun type guys) or laser or both.
20" military for 3 gun
24" with target sights for hi power match
24 heavy bull barrel flat top with 6-24X42 scope for varmints.
then you can change to another caliber and go small deer hunting like
6X45, 7mmTCU, 7.62X39, or the new 6.5 or 6.8.
Even going to the AR10 will give you the same modular construction and you can change things as you want to.
With the M1A.  you have five models- So Com 16, Scout, Standard, M24 sniper model and the National match models.
Both the So Com (16")and the Scout (18") are shoter and may be better for around the house but would perform well at matches and hunting.
The more you use it as in matches and hunting the better you will get with it.

[jasonprox700]

My pick would be the AR.  Cheaper with better accuracy.  I have an AP4 on order.  It will be about 8 lbs, heavy, but both rifles you mentioned are heavy.

I think the AR beats out the M1 in the accuracy too.  I have heard about accurate M1's, but you're going to be sticking at least a couple grand into it, maybe more.  The AR can be had for a little of a grand, and you can figure on 1 MOA with good ammo.

[darrell8937]

The ar is a more practile weapon for most of us. but is not a real battle rifle. When the fields open to hundreds of yards and you face a small army with cover. the M1a is the choice. Lets hope that never happens. The ar is better for tighter quarters and a lot eaiser to handle and carry ammo for! you can't go to far wrong with either though..neither is perfect! If you want to hunt deer,, The m1a is the choice. I have used the garrand and it work just as you would imagine..Hunted with the M1A but didn't see any good deer that year! I have been through many phases over the years. But I think my Mauser Phase is going to take.. I do of course have a ar for fun! a AR 180b. which is what you would get if you a AR and ak mated and had offspring!

[phalanx]

Saying an M1 or an M14 isnt accurate ??  i don't know where they bought theirs from ?
The M1A i had in the 80s really did knock a crow out of the air at a range at 150 yards out of the box.
I swear , the entire range saw it and i bet i couldn't do it again in 100 years.
My LRB is a 1/2 MOA at 100yds and it is your basic MSMC rifle except for the chrome lined barrel.
I do like my ARs, the BM is very accurate and so is the XCR , but they go into the Carbine class of weapons to me.
The release of the FNAR is to little to late ,but the ones who have them they say it is the most accurate 308 out there.
But don't expect to find any mags for it anytime soon.

[Cheesehead]

I have the best solution. Buy one of each, I did. Both very accurate. The M1A with scope and full 20 round mag is surprizingly heavy. I use them both for deer hunting and informal plinking.

Cheese

[phalanx]

I have done that with my M1A ,and i agree it is a great hunting rifle that way. But i like the 5 round mag for hunting it slimes it down nicely and fits in a scabbard.
I keep the LRB as a battle rifle like it was meant to be , and this combo works well.
The extra weight isnt all that bad , you can slim them down so they are 2 pounds lighter by removing and replacing some parts with alloy ones from Fulton Armory.
And hunting always is going to nick or scratch a rifle ,so i would rather it be an M1A than some of those 3,000.00 dollar rifles i see guys hunting with.
I want a SOCOM type rifle but i think i would prefer the Tanker from LRB , it looks more traditional and the Hammer Forged Receiver is a plus always.

[myronman3]

follow cheese's advice.  if you cant get both,  pick one and get it fast.  getting yer paws one these gems is easier said than done anymore.

[mannyrock]

   
    If you are a scrawny guy (under 160 pounds and thin) or an old guy (over 45), get the AR15.

    If you are a young strong muscular guy,who doesn't mind hauling weight, get the M1A.

    ABOVE ALL ELSE, the rifle has to fit you and your body type! Otherwise, it's just a clumbsy toy.

Regards, Mannyrock

[phalanx]

No way ,it doesn't matter the M14 is my Brother ,i tote it and i hold it ,it does the rest.

[scout34]

I've carried both for a year in the sandbox.  Look at the avatar.  Nuff said.

[FourBee]

Greenmtnboy66:
Since you've carried both in the service, you're partial to both.    Even 20 years past wouldn't be reason enough to settle for the lighter easier handling AR if you have a heart for the M1A1.   

In my outfit in NAM, I carried the M-16, so I am partial to it, but some of my buddies carried the M1A1.    You couldn't convince them to carry anything else.    But obtaining one today at $1400 and up is hard to justify. 

Which ever you decide on you'll enjoy it I'm sure.

[LCR]

Most folks consider the .223 a varmint cartridge, and a marginal one at longer ranges. Lets say you're trying to make a kill at long range or trying to penetrate an object (any object), if your 223 doesn't have adequate energy to kill or penetrate, it doesn't matter how light or handy it is, or how "nice to carry" it is, or how much ammunition you can carry. You could spend three days shooting 2,000 rounds and it won't matter, because your weapon is inadequate. It's like trying to get through a brick wall with a tack hammer, sure it's possible....eventually, but why would you cripple yourself with a substandard tool. A Geo Metro is cheap, handy, easy to get around and is very efficient. Try using one to pull your fifth wheel through the mountains, pulling stumps or plowing snow....etc. The 5.56 nato was a huge mistake as a battle cartridge and has been kept alive all these years by government men who aren't man enough to admit when they're wrong or are too cheap to give our troops the weapons they deserve. My rant is over. I appologize if I offended anybody, but that's just the way it is.

[myronman3]

there are situations the m14 is a better tool.  there are situations that the ar is the better tool for the job.   each must decide what fits his/her needs the best. 

[SharonAnne]

If my AR15 will not do it I need a .408CheyTac.

[Lloyd Smale]

the springfield is no doubt the better gun if you can tote the extra weight of the gun and ammo along. If i was defending my home id rather the springfield but if i had to take off on foot id take an ar anyday. Both are reliable with a slight edge to the springfield. I too carried both i guess if i really had to choose one to defend my life with it would be the m1a. Funny thing is i own 3 ars and not a single m1a. Biggest reason is i cant see the price there getting for them. Id dearly love a socom but i dont have 1800 dollars to buy one when a guy can buy 2 ars for that and have change left over for ammo. .

[Lloyd Smale]

i used to preach the same. When i was in the service they were trying to shove them down our throats. I have to admit i was somewhat wrong. they have proven to be a good battle rifle and you will find as many soldiers now that swear by them as swear at them. Sure it could stand to be a little more powerful but its sent a good many commies and terrorists to judgement day. Trouble with the miltary today isnt the ineffectiveness of the 5.56 its the fact that marksmanship is a lot art. To much high tech stuff in the military today and even boot camp has put marksmanship on the bottom of the skills list. Its allmost a crime to give a soldier a rifle after boot camp with the training they get and expect him to defend himself with it. Lots of on the job training going on right now in the sand box and switching to 7.62s would probably create more new problems then it would cure.

Most folks consider the .223 a varmint cartridge, and a marginal one at longer ranges. Lets say you're trying to make a kill at long range or trying to penetrate an object (any object), if your 223 doesn't have adequate energy to kill or penetrate, it doesn't matter how light or handy it is, or how "nice to carry" it is, or how much ammunition you can carry. You could spend three days shooting 2,000 rounds and it won't matter, because your weapon is inadequate. It's like trying to get through a brick wall with a tack hammer, sure it's possible....eventually, but why would you cripple yourself with a substandard tool. A Geo Metro is cheap, handy, easy to get around and is very efficient. Try using one to pull your fifth wheel through the mountains, pulling stumps or plowing snow....etc. The 5.56 nato was a huge mistake as a battle cartridge and has been kept alive all these years by government men who aren't man enough to admit when they're wrong or are too cheap to give our troops the weapons they deserve. My rant is over. I appologize if I offended anybody, but that's just the way it is.

[Graybeard]

Id dearly love a socom but i dont have 1800 dollars to buy one when a guy can buy 2 ars for that and have change left over for ammo.

And that from a fellow who buys custom sixguns costing more as if they were popcorn.  It ain't that ya can't Lloyd it's just a matter of priorities and your priorities for one are lower than for the sixguns.

[LCR]

the springfield is no doubt the better gun if you can tote the extra weight of the gun and ammo along. If i was defending my home id rather the springfield but if i had to take off on foot id take an ar anyday. Both are reliable with a slight edge to the springfield. I too carried both i guess if i really had to choose one to defend my life with it would be the m1a. Funny thing is i own 3 ars and not a single m1a. Biggest reason is i cant see the price there getting for them. Id dearly love a socom but i dont have 1800 dollars to buy one when a guy can buy 2 ars for that and have change left over for ammo. .

               I'm not trying to sharp shoot you here, pardner, but I had to say it........
  You could buy 3 geo metros and have plenty of money left over for gasoline and spare tires for the cost of one three quarter ton turbo diesel, but if one can't do the job, the other two won't help it. Boys in WWII packed the M1 all day long. I held a standard Socom 16 the other day and the weight is very comparable to an AR. The Socom 16 feels very light and short, I reckon in confined places she'd swing like a dream. I do not own that model, so I haven't chronographed it first hand, but I've heard from reliable sources that velocity loss from the 16" bbl is only around 150fps. Springfield also has a lifetime warranty and I don't mind paying for quality, there can't be quality without cost, it's just impossible. I would like to add that the M14 has received very little support from the government over the years. I don't think very many people realize how much time and money has been spent on the AR15/M16 just to get the stupid thing to work. If the gov't put that kind of effort into the M14 and give our boys some real ammo instead of that machine gun grade crap their getting, they'd really have something.

[Lloyd Smale]

money just isnt there like it used to be bill. Im making alot less since ive been out of work with this back. Now my purchases need justification. Im trying to fill the holes in my collection with guns that i plan on keeping for the long term. A socom may be in the works but it will be a year or two before ill be able to get it.  A guys got to keep in mind that there more expensive to shoot too. I find 223 brass on the ground at the range but not 308. Bulllets cost twice what 22 bullet does and they use a 1/3 more powder. So if you shoot alot like me it can get more expensive and bottom line is theres probably never going to come a day when i have to actually use it as a battle rifle anyway and if i do get into a situation ive used ars enough to know that they do the job just fine.

[SharonAnne]

nothing can be done to make the M14 as accurate as an M16. The M16 can easily have its barrel free floated. You cannot free float an M14 barrel because of the gas system. Although I have not read anything in current literature the last 2 articles I read on 'accurized' M14s the best they could manage with commercial match ammo was 2" at 100 yd.  An M16 or AR15 that has a free float tube installed can usually manage sub 1" at 100 yd with 55gr ball. With match ammo they can easily go sub 1/2 MOA.

If you go back to the trials pitting the M14 against the M16 it was noted how the M16 was more reliable than the M14. It was only after the gunpowder was switched to Winchester ball powder, from the extruded stick powder by Remington that the M16 was type accepted with, that trouble started. It was made worse by the Macnamara whizz kids claiming it did not need cleaning and refusing to allow the military to have the chamber and barrel chrome plated as all military rifles had been for over 20 yrs.

We now know to clean our ARs, chrome plate any non-stainless barrels and ball powder is now coated to reduce deposits. Or, just buy Remington ammunition as the M16 was originally accepted with.

[LCR]

Benchrest accuracy has absolutely nothing to do with warfare, it can rarely be achieved in a combat situation. It doesn't matter if your AR can shoot half inch groups, what good will that do you in a firefight? If you're refering to sniping, at what, 100 yards? 200? 600? A match grade M14 is easily capable of MOA, and even if it was 2 MOA it will still out shoot a 223 past 100 yards. Try shooting a target at 600 yards with 223 and a 20mph crosswind and tell me how lucky you are. Even if you are lucky enough to hit anything(with high wind), what is that 22 cal. bullet going to do when it hits your target at 600 yards with 250ft lbs of energy? You may as well send the taliban an FTD pick-me-up-bouquet. This whole "combat rifle benchrest accuracy" thing is killing me. Every time this conversation surfaces the AR deciples have no place to go so they fall back on the old "Well the AR will shoot groups half inch smaller than the M14." The 223 will never be an adequate long range sniping round, so half inch groups have nothing to do with anything, pounding people without body armor in the chest from a few feet away while clearing buildings or making perfect head shots out to 200 yards(with calm conditions) would probably be the extent of it's usefulness. The 7.62 kills better, period. A 223 has never been and never will be a better cartridge for war, period. A match grade M14 can make reliable kills at 800 yards, period. A match grade M16 will never, ever, ever, ever be able to make reliable kills at 800 yards, period. And the guys in the middle east aren't shooting paper targets. If the AR is so great, why have we been constantly trying to improve it by going to heavier bullets? Because it's a varmint cartridge being used on people, who would have ever thought that it wouldn't pan out? It doesn't matter how heavy you go, cause at the end of the day, all you have is a slower 22 caliber bullet. these are the facts. I'm not making them up, I'm just writing them down.

[SharonAnne]

and emphasizing all of your points with a period makes you oh so right, period. If the M14 could outshoot the M16 then why do military shooters using M16s always win at Camp Perry at 600yds? Ask someone who has shot at Camp Perry about the winds. The M14 loses, always.Period. While the 7.6X51 is used past 600yds it is not used in an M14. Not if they want to hit anything. Match grade M14s do not hold MOA at 600yd at Camp Perry. Where do they shoot 600yd MOA? I know that Springfield Armory puts out a Whitefeather M21 wannabe. Carlos Hathcock never used an M14 or M21. He used a bolt action, IIRC it was a Winchester Model 70 in .30-06.PERIOD

[Lloyd Smale]

i kind of agree with both of you. An ar is no doubt easier to make accurate. They usually shoot moa right out of the box and even cheap ones usually do that. A 14 takes work but ive personaly seen groups shot at a 100 yards that were moa or a tad less. 14s tend to be a bit more load sensitive but once you found a load it will run with a ar. As to sniping. Who the hell is going to ever do that anyway. If crap hits the fan the last thing your going to do is shoot someone 500 yards away. If there after you and there that far a way your going to just get out of dodge and avoid drawing attention to yourself. If faced with that situation and i had to make a shot im with sharron. My heavy barreled ruger 308 would get the nod and if not that just about everyone in the country that owns a gun has a scoped deer rifle that could be put into service for long shots. Like i said i carried both and you do a hell of alot more carrying then you do shooting and if you have to shoot its usually going to be close. the ars are light and handy, again ill remind you that a pile of rag heads have said hi to Alah after seeing the wrong end of one. Now if i was clearing houses id want a m14. Up close and personal you want the knock down and stay down power it provides. Its more of a specialty gun and i think the general man on the line is better served with an ar. For a survival rifle for a civilian the ar wins hands down. Its lighter easier to shoot and maintain, ammo cheap enough where a guy can put away a couple thousand rounds, and its cheap enough that the average guy can afford it. Bottom line is a mini 14 is probably just as good in this situation and can be bought cheaper. Not near as accurate but still minute of man out to 200 yards. Same goes for the mini 30. Mine is one of my favorites. It isnt a tack driver but again its minute of man. Ammo cheap as are components. Ammo is almost as light and compact as a ar. Hits and penetrates more like the 762. Only problem is a guy cant find high capasity mags that works. A company is looking at doing that now and if they do in my opinion it is the best choise of all of them. Plus if the ruskys or the chinks come theyll even bring you ammo

[Dee]

Lloyd, I pretty much agree with all you've said here with one exception on house clearing which I have done a BUNCH OF.
The M1A WILL shoot with the AR15 or M16 the right load, and the right SHOOTER, and minute of angle is hard at times to determine when one is measuring a hole in a target that is 8 calibers larger than a 22.
You are also correct in that are we talking about BENCH rifles on this thread or are we talking about FIGHTING rifles here?

Now back to the house clearing issue. I have as I said done a BUNCH of that over a 20 year career, and the very LAST rifle I would choose for that task is one in 308. WAAAYYY Too much penetration! If we have gotten to the issue of clearing the house we have probably already taken control of the OUTSIDE of the house. That means friendly personnel OUTSIDE. I for one do not want to get into a fight INSIDE with FRIENDLIES "outside".
The shotgun is the way to go, or in second place a major caliber semi-auto pistol, and in third place an AR15 or M16 in an M4 type configuration.
I personally preferred the Model 1100 Rem. heavily modified, while the military gave my son a Persuader in Mossberg for house to house in Baghdad.
I also agree with you on sniping in a survival situation. It is the LAST THING you should want (a confrontation) in such a scenario. Avoidance is paramount, unless you are in a Rambo movie.
I also agree on the portability of the AR over the M14. I have humped both for several days at a time hunting dopers in the river bottoms. The AR gets the nod hands down.

[LCR]

and emphasizing all of your points with a period makes you oh so right, period. If the M14 could outshoot the M16 then why do military shooters using M16s always win at Camp Perry at 600yds? Ask someone who has shot at Camp Perry about the winds. The M14 loses, always.Period. While the 7.6X51 is used past 600yds it is not used in an M14. Not if they want to hit anything. Match grade M14s do not hold MOA at 600yd at Camp Perry. Where do they shoot 600yd MOA? I know that Springfield Armory puts out a Whitefeather M21 wannabe. Carlos Hathcock never used an M14 or M21. He used a bolt action, IIRC it was a Winchester Model 70 in .30-06.PERIOD

             I wasn't talking about "Camp Perry", I'm talking about the "Real World". Do you really believe that a 223 will buck the wind better than a 308? Everybody and their brother in the middle east are being issued M14's for Designated Marksman Rifles. Maybe you should call the DOD and let them know about the magazine articles you read.

[Dee]

and emphasizing all of your points with a period makes you oh so right, period. If the M14 could outshoot the M16 then why do military shooters using M16s always win at Camp Perry at 600yds? Ask someone who has shot at Camp Perry about the winds. The M14 loses, always.Period. While the 7.6X51 is used past 600yds it is not used in an M14. Not if they want to hit anything. Match grade M14s do not hold MOA at 600yd at Camp Perry. Where do they shoot 600yd MOA? I know that Springfield Armory puts out a Whitefeather M21 wannabe. Carlos Hathcock never used an M14 or M21. He used a bolt action, IIRC it was a Winchester Model 70 in .30-06.PERIOD

             I wasn't talking about "Camp Perry", I'm talking about the "Real World". Do you really believe that a 223 will buck the wind better than a 308? Everybody and their brother in the middle east are being issued M14's for Designated Marksman Rifles. Maybe you should call the DOD and let them know about the magazine articles you read.

LOL! You darn sure hit the nail on the head there BUT! That once again is a military scenario. Are we talking military or civilian use? What is this tread about. As far as gun magazine articles, I could not agree with you more. They for the most part are ARMCHAIR quarterbacks selling guns for manufacturers, and magazines for publishers.
As far as calling the Dept. of Defense, I would rather discuss them getting us constantly into POLICTICAL "POLICE ACTIONS" which NEVER WORK, but get a lot of good men killed. I had rather them WIN THE WAR, and fight the Police Actions THEMSELVES. JMO on the DOD.