AR15 or M1A?

[Old Griz]

:cb2: Kicking around the idea of a high capacity rifle for some unknown reason. Don't really need one, but since did I ever let "need" get in the way of a new gun? The two that come to mind are the Bushmaster Varminter, and the Springfield M1A SOCOM. Both are excellent, overpriced rifles.

Gotta a bolt action Savage in .223 that shoots 5/16 groups, so I already have a good prairie dog gun. Also have a cheap lead spitter with my Ruger Mini-Thirty (which I've had for a year now, and haven't even fired it).

Oh, and by the way, I have never fired an AR-15, or a M1A, so I'm really open to suggestions.

[Ramrod]

No suggestions here, but there are some pretty good reasons why the "Black Rifle" is still the military issue weapon after 40 years. No other American firearm except maybe the 1903 Springfield can come close to that claim.

[SAWgunner]

No suggestions here, but there are some pretty good reasons why the "Black Rifle" is still the military issue weapon after 40 years. No other American firearm except maybe the 1903 Springfield can come close to that claim.

True.  I have never carried an M1 (any variant), M14, or any other rifle that was issued with Wooden stocks.  I have carried all variants of the M-16, including the A-1 (It was a Daewoo contract that I carried while part of a Quick Reaction Force detailed to a ROK soldier team) and I like them alot.  My favorite was the M4, and I recently bought a Bushmaster M4A3 Heavy barrel (removable "carrying" handle).  I have read reports of the Springfeild SOCOM 7.62mm, and above all things, they discuss the muzzle blast in lentgh.  Now, I don't care who you are, muzzle blast sucks and less of it is always a good things.  In my personal opinion, you would be happier with an AR.


SAWgunner

[NYH1]

Old Griz, I don't think you can go wrong with either one! Having said that I voted for the AR-15 because I have one and love it! Look at Rock River Arms and DPMS as well as the Bushmaster you like. They're all really well made rifles! I'm not knocking the Springfield M1A SOCOM rifle at all. I'd love to have one of those too! :grin:

http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm
http://www.dpmsinc.com/
http://www.bushmaster.com/
http://ar15.com/

[45LCshoooter]

I guess it really depends on what you want to do, where you live, etc. I say, why limit yourself? I really love my L1A1 but i don't expect low-MOA out of it. I have hit clay pigions on the berm at my favorite range, but it will never be asked to do better by me.

I bought it because i wanted one and don't expect to ever see a SHTF situation, but any trouble that comes to my abode will likely come in a car and .308 can do a lot more to a car than .223. Not that i look for it to happen, you know. And not that i felt any less safe when the role was filled by an Enfield in .303.

Anyway, there are pleny of good rifles out there and even if you are sticking to the two choices, there is a lot to be said of the .30. To me, it is more a matter of whether the .223 is too little or the .30 is too much.

[matador]

Get the ar you won't regret it,more accessories and mag capacity.

[IntrepidWizard]

I got a MIA in 77 when I was a Reserve Deputy up here and put the Leatherwood sniper scope on and it has been a perfect weapon,If I was reduced to one weapon only I would want the MIA ,off hand it is excellent and with a brace or prone the 1000 yd piece of steel rings everytime.

[rockbilly]

I picked up my first Colt AR15 back in '68.  I had lots of experience with the ARs in Nam, they are good weapons for close in, but personally, If I were in a SHTF situation I would prefer something larger.  Therefore, I would go with the larger caliber.  You may be able to "make the steel ring" at a thousand yards, but the energy is exhausted and there is little damage.  The big gun still has killing power at 1000 yards.

My first tour in Nam was with the Army as an advisor.  We had a choice of weapons, most members selected the AK, there was a number of reasons for doing this, first, fire power, second, more effective at long range, third. we could use ammo recovered from enemy forces.  When I went back the second time with the Air Force I immediately scrounged an AK for use in the field.

Bottom line, why take an ineffective popgun to a gun fight? :eek:

[Gregory]

I voted AR because that's what I bought for a "fun" gun.  Got a Bushy Varminter and will add an A2 upper someday for open sight plinking and home defense..

[chris s]

I would go with the M1A, gonna get one myself. The boys in the sandbox are pulling the old ones out of the mothballs -seems they work better than the M16

[redial]

Been issued both, own both, like both.

Went Distinguished with the '14, made High Master with the 16. Coin toss, right?

The deciding factor was brought up by 45LC - the ability to penetrate vehicles and cover. For the SHTF scenario, we're discussing using each as a weapon and for that, in our country, the M1A works better IMO. Better bludgeon too.

YMMV,

Redial

[Big Paulie]

You have to decide whether you want something that is probably just adequate as a true offensive weapon, but really fun and cheap to shoot and nice to plink with (the AR-15), or something that is a superior SHTF weapon, that isn't so fun or cheap to shoot or plink with, and is heavy, and that you will only really bring out when the S really HTF   (the M1-A)!

  Another big factor that nobody has mentioned is this.  How big are you and what kind of shape are you in?  If you are not a real big guy, and not in the best of shape, then lugging an M1-A around probably isn't the best solution.  The AR-15 is lighter, and would let you move further and faster.  (I am 50 years old, and I only weigh 145 pounds, so if I had to choose, then it would be the AR-15, not because it is superior as a weapon to the M1-A, but because in my particular hands, I could use it in a more superior and effective manner than I could use an M1-A.)

  On the other hand, if you are six feet or more, young, strong, in good shape, then the M1-A would be the better choice as a weapon.


Best Regards,  Mannyrock

[Ramrod]

  On the other hand, if you are six feet or more, young, strong, in good shape, then the M1-A would be the better choice as a weapon.
Best Regards,  Mannyrock

I think it makes a better club, but it is a pretty sorry rifle. And not one "rifleman" in a thousand can use the additional range of the 7.62 round effectively. The ones that can, use bolt guns. Scroll up and read my earlier post.

[rockbilly]

No suggestions here, but there are some pretty good reasons why the "Black Rifle" is still the military issue weapon after 40 years. No other American firearm except maybe the 1903 Springfield can come close to that claim

Ramrod.  I have to agree with you to some extent, however, one of the major issues with replacing a weapon is MONEY.  Since there are so many in the inventory, they will continue to be used.  The military has been working on replacing the "Black RIfle" for sever years but the necessity to spend in other areas has prevented it.  Another weapon in this category is the M92 Beretta.  They have had some major problems wit it, and found the 9mm to be ineffective in combat.

Most all of the military elite forces, (Seals, Special Forces, etc) are being armed with .30 caliber long guns and with .40 handguns.  Another problem that has always been there for the military, It is much too costly, and harder to teach an individual to be an effective marksman with the big bores.  

In Iraq they have found the "Black Gun" to be satisfactory, but not as effective as the AKs.  Don't be surprised if in the near future you don't see a new FN type .30 caliber and the Sig P229 as the primary weapons of the military.

I am retired military, and have worked in the Logistics area for the military for 27 years.  Right now we are having problems buying aircraft parts because there is no money available, vehicles are worn out and few are being replaced.  My point, as tight as money is, they can't afford to replace the 9mm or the Black Gun right now, but it will happen.

[Ramrod]

rockbilly, you are 100% correct about the 9mm and the 5.56 being replaced someday. Everything becomes obsolete sooner or later. My point on this thread is that the M-14 and it's M1-A variant have seen their day, it has come and gone. The "Black Rifle" has stood the test of time, no small feat historically. The military will not be going backward, as some would like, to the .45 ACP and 7.62 rounds, but rather foward, to something new, and as yet untried in battle. If they get it right, it might be used for the next 40 or 50 years. If they get it wrong, it will be delegated to history's scrap heap much quicker, like the M-1 Garand and M-14 were.

[myronman3]

now hold yer horses.   i am as big a m16 fan as you will find.  that being said....

 if'n they have been thrown on the scrap heap,  how come the m14 is still in use by certain groups?  and,  why is the m14 the weapon of choice for extreme cold weather ops?  

lets not even start on the 1911/ 45.  

newer isnt always better.  there is no arguement that the m14 packs more omph on the killing end than the m16.  i would like to see a larger caliber bullet somewhere between 6.5mm to 7mm.  you dont need the wieght of the 30 caliber bullet, but something with a bit more mass than  the 5.56 can offer would be nice.   there is a decided difference in power.  

keep in mind,  some of the poor souls have to pack their ammo everywhere, so loading them down isnt always practical.   the number of rounds per # is a factor.   this is where the 5.56 beats the hell out of the 7.62.  

there is alot to consider.

[Ramrod]

 if'n they have been thrown on the scrap heap,  how come the m14 is still in use by certain groups?  and,  why is the m14 the weapon of choice for extreme cold weather ops?  

What groups are you talking about? Afgan militia units?  

[rockbilly]

:roll: I think the driving force on selection of a replacement caliber for the 5.56 will be to satisfy NATO.  I don't necessarily agree, but thats politics.

As a young man, I spent many nights sleeping with an old M1 Garand.  She kept me company and I learned to love her.  I sure hated to give her up.  Guess you could say, to some degree I kinda agree with General George Patton, " The M1 Grand is the best damn battle rifle ever made."  How true, if she would spit out three or four times the number of rounds she currently does.

Whatever the replacement is, you can bet your boots it will be simular in some respects to the Black Gun.  Most likely a light, low maintenance alloy and plastic gun in 7.62 NATO.

[Old Griz]

:cb2: I appreciate all of the different perspectives. So far it hasn't made the selection process any easier with so many good agruments on each side.

I have an excellent varmint rifle with a Savage in .223, and a cheap to shoot fun gun with a Ruger Mini-30. I may be leaning toward the M1A simply because of the extended effective range of the gun over the AR. I must say the Bushmaster Varminter is very appealing.

If I wanted, or for some reason, needed to hunt with it, the .308 would be legal here in Tennessee, but the .223 would not. However, there's the .30-30, .45-70, 6.5 Swede . . . and I guess the M1A wouldn't really be needed for that. Maybe 20-rounds of .30 cal. at a charging bear? Not likely this far south!

I guess what's making it so hard is that I don't really need either one, I just kinda want one. If I had a vacant nitch that needed filling it would be easier.

But please do continue with the debate. I'm hoping someone will push me over the edge, one way or another.

[Big Paulie]

Griz,

  You've been bitten by the "I wanna new gun no matter what and this one really looks neat even though I have absolutely no use for it" bug.   Seriously, my advice is to take two aspirin, don't read any gun literature for the next 30 days, and watch alot of football.  You will find at the end of the month that you have completely lost all interest in getting an AR-15 or an M1A.  

  I live in West Tennessee myself (Memphis), and I gotta tell you, even in West Tennessee, you would look weird hunting deer with an M1A.

   Scope out and tune up that .30-.30 Marlin or Winchester, and get ready for deer season.

Best Regards,

Big Paulie

[Old Griz]

:cb2: Oh--another one of King Willie's subjects in Democrat Land. Gee, instead of hunting deer, the M1A would come in handy here walking the dog!  :eek:

[Big Paulie]

Yea Griz, you are right.  Course, since I don't have a dog, I would probably just carry the M1-A when I am jogging on Central Avenue, which as you know is just one block north of Lamar Avenue (the real bad Hood).
But, an AR-14 M-4 would probably be easier to jog with.

Paul

[redial]

Fellas, it seems we're debating two related but seperate matters.

Old Griz wants a rifle - this one or that one. Development of military materiel is the other topic, which I think makes good reference but doesn't address Ol Griz's question.

What you and I and Griz and everyone else who wipes their nose on their sleeve needs is not necessarily what a 19 year old grunt "in country" needs. Different scenarios with different outcomes and many different elements.

Here among us oldguys, we don't operate within a unit nor do we have covering fire, coordinated movement, logistic or arty support, on and on. It's probably just us and our friends and neighbors doing whatever needs doing with a rifle. The grunt fights with his. We plink, hunt, handload, compete and maybe fight with ours.

FWIW, I own both. Mine are target versions built by the best but I'm not inclined to get rid of either!

My two cents, worth every penny

Redial

[992]

I have both and use them both as the case calls for.
We are talking two different weapons that both have their uses,just depends on where you are and where you are going.
Open country is better for for the M1A, closer in ,as urban or wooded areas, might work better for the AR.
It all comes down to which one you can shoot the best,and feel that it suits your needs best.
If you have the .30,but don't need the extra range,or power,the you are carrying the extra weight that could be used to carry more needed gear.
The 5.56 will handle about any thing that the average situation might call for.
If you can try them both, the question will probably answer its self.
Just remember , one hit with a 5.56, is better than 10 misses with a .30.
BY the way,I voted for the M1A.
The reason the M16 is still with us,and will be for some time, is that it is hard for a 110 lb. female, or male, on average to handle a 10 lb. weapon on a daily basis. I am sure that there are some who can do it, but it is not the normal thing you would see.
Just my .02 cents worth, and it is worth exactly what you paid for it. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

992

[rockbilly]

:shock: 992.  Just like you underestimated the 110 pound female's ability to carry a larger rifle, I underestimated their ability to serve as an aircraft mechanic.  Several years before I retired from the Air Force (1977) they went co-ed, most all fields were opened to women. I had several that worked for me in aircraft maintenance.  I complained to everyone that would listen.  I was surprised at the desire to excel in most of them.  I had 110 pounds "girls" that would grab a full tool box in one hand, an F4 brake assembly in the other and take off walking across the flight line to repair an aircraft.  

Today, they are still eager to show they can do a man's job.  Matter of fact, they may just be a little on the "macho mama" side.  From my observation, working with them on a daily basis there would be few that couldn't handle a larger rifle.  Look at  Israel, how many of their women are "on the front line", and packing big iron?    

[myronman3]

the day i meet a woman who can out perform me in regards to combat,  i will eat my boots.    carrying combat loads, navigation, lack of field hygeine, firing heavy weapons, hand to hand (full contact), and flat out cold killing instinct.  women just aint got it; thank God.  they are mean enough without it.   :-D    :-D   :-D    :-D  

for the record,  it has been a good 11 years since i have done anything military.  and i will still eat my boots if a woman can hang with me.

[Old Griz]

:cb2: Be careful what you say. They have a secret weapon that gives them super strength and abilities called PMS! I've seen a typewriter fly twice as far as I could ever throw it!  :-D

[Thrawn]

Get the M1A, leave the squirrel gun on the shelf.

[ought6]

For someone who doesn't really have a hole to fill, but just wants one or the other, the AR can be had for about half the price (not the varminter - it is speciallized for accuracy).  However, if you wanted a highly accurate M1A, you'd be paying probably twice the amount you'd pay for the Bushmaster Varminter.

So, back to the original question.  Given the above facts, the answer is easy, go with the AR.  If you need a sure enough battle proven, battle ready 7.62x51, go with an FN FAL :grin: .

The AR is fun, light, easy to shoot, points like a laser, and hits what you aim at.  Anti personnel rounds for civilians are not limited to FMJ's!!!!  In my department, we use the Black Hills 60 gr SP rounds with great success.  They absolutely stop the threat!

So, the AR can be a man stopper with the right ammo and in the mean time, cheaper to own, cheaper to shoot, and more accurate than any other currently produced battle rifle on the market.

[K.K.]

The .308 is one of the most versatile and accurate rounds out there.  It is definitely a better man (and beast) stopper than the .223. It is an inherently accurate round with much more downrange punch than any .223, and ammo is readily available. I like them both, though.  But if i had to choose, give me an accurate FAL, or Springfield SOCOM when going into harm's way.