M1A or AR 15

[a1fabweld]

Get both so you don't have to make these tough decisions!

[Max-the-Silent]

I was wondering what you guys think about these two rifles. I just picked up my Remington 870 last night and love it. The next gun on my list would be one of those two rifles. I wanted your input on what would work better for my preferences.

I want a rifle that is accurate long and short range. Easy to maintain, not too much of a hassle in California and won't get too much attention from the Police if I get pulled over for whatever.

How long does it take to load a locked magazine on the AR-15?

Would the M1A be a better choice for me because I would prefer to have a rifle with no hassles on the range. (Detachable magazine)

And which of the two rifles would be cheaper to buy or build, maintain and customize?

M1A all the way. Get the Squad/Scout version.

[Darklyte27]

I am getting the Std Loaded syn stock with SS barrel.

I should have bought it when it was 1484 at buds.. but it was paying 818$ for the 6L vs 1500$..

[baldoHHO]

You can have all..www.mgimilitary.com.

[AMC]

I've got the m1a scout and love it. Whenever I take it to the range, I get lots of questions and people stopping what they are doing to check it out. I think it's a little louder than the standard m1a but very controllable.

[BB63Squid]

I would have to say my preference would be the M1A. Mostly for emotional reasons but I can skew logical reasons to fit the bill as well.

[Beelzy]

You can have all..www.mgimilitary.com.

Holy Guacamole Batman!!

If you need it that bad, get the real deal.




Note Cali-legal belt. I call her Miss Piggy

[aplinker]

Get whichever excites you the most. I'd encourage you to buy an AR lower if you choose an M1A, since the DROS fee is about 1/3 the cost.

Just to clarify a few things, since most people in this thread are too pro-M1A:

-M1As are NOT as accurate as ARs. M1As take significant work to even come close to the out of the box accuracy of a typical AR. This is indisputable. The gas system, linear action and free-floated barrel of the AR all make for an extremely accurate platform. All long range shooting is now done off the AR platform. The reason the M21 sniper was ever used was due to the lack of a .308 AR platform in inventory.

-By people who actually use the AR, the 5.56 is not underpowered. The additional # of ammunition that can be carried (way more than double) for the same size/weight is a significant advantage.

-The M1A is not an M14 and, as such, has some reliability issues of its own.

-The AR is much easier and better suited for optics.



Now, if you go M1A... I'll echo the Scout as the way to go (if you want short and handy), but the Stainless Loaded with synthetic stock is also an excellent choice. If you buy a scope, expect to spend $200+ on a mount. You can't cheap out an expect it to work or hold zero.

[Artery]

-M1As are NOT as accurate as ARs. M1As take significant work to even come close to the out of the box accuracy of a typical AR. This is indisputable. The gas system, linear action and free-floated barrel of the AR all make for an extremely accurate platform. All long range shooting is now done off the AR platform. The reason the M21 sniper was ever used was due to the lack of a .308 AR platform in inventory.

-By people who actually use the AR, the 5.56 is not underpowered. The additional # of ammunition that can be carried (way more than double) for the same size/weight is a significant advantage.

-The M1A is not an M14 and, as such, has some reliability issues of its own.

-The AR is much easier and better suited for optics.

I don't want to get in an argument here but some of what you're saying here doesn't make sense. The OP was asking about AR-15s, not AR-10s. Your statement that the M21 was used because theyre weren't any .308 AR platforms is outright incorrect. The original AR-10 was chambered in 7.62 back in the mid 50s, the M21 wasn't adopted until the late '60s. Long range military shooting is done with M21s, M25s, SR-25s, MK11s and M40s, all chambered in .308. This of course exempts the 50 caliber Barrett monsters. I'll concede at moderate ranges the lethality of .223 is very good or even excellent, but once the range starts to open up, its time to step up to something larger.

Most of the differences in M1A and AR-15 performance can be analyzed when looking at what eras the weapons were designed in. The M1A is in many ways a hold over from early 20th century thinking of engaging targets at long range with precisely aimed fire. The AR-15(M16) is from after a time when the military realized how close most engagements were held at. They saw that for the average soldier high volume fire was more necessary than slow accurate fire. Soldiers also wanted a weapon that was easier to carry and shoot standing.

I shoot both M1As and an AR-15. The .223 is underpowered for certain applications, such as long range or big game hunting. If you need what you are shooting at to drop on the first shot, .308 is the way to go compared to .223. The .308 bullet weights nearly three times as much and has double the muzzle energy of the .223 round. To use a car analogy, the .308 is the torquey V8, the .223 is the high strung 4 cylinder.

Last time I checked no one at the 1000yd camp perry matches was shooting a .223 AR-15, though there were certainly quite a few M1As. Admittedly some shooters do use AR based .308 systems, but again the poster is asking about AR-15s, so any discussion of .308 AR platformed rifles is irrelevant.

For the same reason of when the weapons were designed, it is true the AR-15 platform is much easier to mount optics to, but consider that even the AR-15/M16 wasn't initially designed to be used primarily with optics. The AR-15 barrel is not free floated unless you put on a custom foregrip system.

The M1A is effectively identical to the M14 except for select fire capability, which was actually present on very early M1As. The M1A is incredibly reliable. I've had very very few malfunctions with any M1A, M14 or Garand. The few malfunctions that I have had were easily cleared by simply pulling the charging handle.

On single shots, the M1A is more accurate at moderate to longer ranges than the AR-15. When rapid firing, the recoil characteristics of the AR-15 make sustained fire more accurate, again due to the philosophies that went into both weapons and that the small .223 cartridge carries with it much less recoil. In my humble and unscientific opinion, most stories of poor first shot accuracy with M1As are due to shooters jerking the trigger or flinching from the greater recoil.

Again, not looking to start a fight, I love my AR-15, its light, fun, cheap to shoot, and looks great. At close to moderate range (what the AR was designed for) its great. It shoulders much nicer than a M1A, points faster, etc. Pick up one of each and see how it feels in your hands. In summary, ten targets at 100 meters, pick the AR-15, two targets at 600 meters, pull out the M1A.

[J_Rock]

I don't want to get in an argument here but some of what you're saying here doesn't make sense. The OP was asking about AR-15s, not AR-10s. Your statement that the M21 was used because theyre weren't any .308 AR platforms is outright incorrect. The original AR-10 was chambered in 7.62 back in the mid 50s, the M21 wasn't adopted until the late '60s. Long range military shooting is done with M21s, M25s, SR-25s, MK11s and M40s, all chambered in .308. This of course exempts the 50 caliber Barrett monsters. I'll concede at moderate ranges the lethality of .223 is very good or even excellent, but once the range starts to open up, its time to step up to something larger.

Most of the differences in M1A and AR-15 performance can be analyzed when looking at what eras the weapons were designed in. The M1A is in many ways a hold over from early 20th century thinking of engaging targets at long range with precisely aimed fire. The AR-15(M16) is from after a time when the military realized how close most engagements were held at. They saw that for the average soldier high volume fire was more necessary than slow accurate fire. Soldiers also wanted a weapon that was easier to carry and shoot standing.

I shoot both M1As and an AR-15. The .223 is underpowered for certain applications, such as long range or big game hunting. If you need what you are shooting at to drop on the first shot, .308 is the way to go compared to .223. The .308 bullet weights nearly three times as much and has double the muzzle energy of the .223 round. To use a car analogy, the .308 is the torquey V8, the .223 is the high strung 4 cylinder.

Last time I checked no one at the 1000yd camp perry matches was shooting a .223 AR-15, though there were certainly quite a few M1As. Admittedly some shooters do use AR based .308 systems, but again the poster is asking about AR-15s, so any discussion of .308 AR platformed rifles is irrelevant.

For the same reason of when the weapons were designed, it is true the AR-15 platform is much easier to mount optics to, but consider that even the AR-15/M16 wasn't initially designed to be used primarily with optics. The AR-15 barrel is not free floated unless you put on a custom foregrip system.

The M1A is effectively identical to the M14 except for select fire capability, which was actually present on very early M1As. The M1A is incredibly reliable. I've had very very few malfunctions with any M1A, M14 or Garand. The few malfunctions that I have had were easily cleared by simply pulling the charging handle.

On single shots, the M1A is more accurate at moderate to longer ranges than the AR-15. When rapid firing, the recoil characteristics of the AR-15 make sustained fire more accurate, again due to the philosophies that went into both weapons and that the small .223 cartridge carries with it much less recoil. In my humble and unscientific opinion, most stories of poor first shot accuracy with M1As are due to shooters jerking the trigger or flinching from the greater recoil.

Again, not looking to start a fight, I love my AR-15, its light, fun, cheap to shoot, and looks great. At close to moderate range (what the AR was designed for) its great. It shoulders much nicer than a M1A, points faster, etc. Pick up one of each and see how it feels in your hands. In summary, ten targets at 100 meters, pick the AR-15, two targets at 600 meters, pull out the M1A.

I'm going to have to agree with everything but those 2 statements.

First of all M1A's made by Springfield are not at all identical to USGI M14s. Besides the select fire capability(which was actually removed in .mil M14) the quality of the parts is what sets them apart which in all cases is inferior to USGI M14 parts. Springfield uses MIM(metal injection molding) on important parts such as the sights,,extractor, op-rod, trigger groups which are prone to breaking without warning, so inorder to get a truly 'reliable' mil-spec M14 you would need to get those parts replace.

Secondly, the AR-15 style rifle has broken all records previously held by the M14 at camp perry. AR pattern rifles have proven time and time again that they are more accurate than the M14, which is not to say the M14 isnt accurate because it can be. Match grade M1A are typically 1 MOA shooters(after glass bedding and other enhancements). Its just the AR lends itself to being accurized much easier. Even after all that an accurized AR15 will shoot circles around a match grade M1A.

[Fantasma]

For your Preferences i would definitely go with the M1A the police will not think your a criminal with one. You can carry it in your trunk without a Mag and feel safe everywhere. Accurate at long distances, powerful, don't have to worry about cops with the OLL scene...

[swhatb]

For your Preferences i would definitely go with the M1A the police will not think your a criminal with one. You can carry it in your trunk without a Mag and feel safe everywhere. Accurate at long distances, powerful, don't have to worry about cops with the OLL scene...

bump...

[Artery]

I'm going to have to agree with everything but those 2 statements.

First of all M1A's made by Springfield are not at all identical to USGI M14s. Besides the select fire capability(which was actually removed in .mil M14) the quality of the parts is what sets them apart which in all cases is inferior to USGI M14 parts. Springfield uses MIM(metal injection molding) on important parts such as the sights,,extractor, op-rod, trigger groups which are prone to breaking without warning, so inorder to get a truly 'reliable' mil-spec M14 you would need to get those parts replace.

Secondly, the AR-15 style rifle has broken all records previously held by the M14 at camp perry. AR pattern rifles have proven time and time again that they are more accurate than the M14, which is not to say the M14 isnt accurate because it can be. Match grade M1A are typically 1 MOA shooters(after glass bedding and other enhancements). Its just the AR lends itself to being accurized much easier. Even after all that an accurized AR15 will shoot circles around a match grade M1A.

I'm aware of the differences in manufacturing methods between USGI and SA parts, which is why I said "effectively," though I should have been more clear in that there is an effective difference in part performance depending on manufacturing techniques. I was trying to make it simpler for the OP to understand. I meant to express that mechanically they are nearly identical.

Hmm, I know that the larger caliber AR platform rifles are very accurate at long range, but I was specifically referring to .223 weapons. As I understand it "AR-15" specifically refers to a 5.56/.223 firing weapon, whereas "AR platform" or "AR pattern" includes the 5.56/.223 rifles, as well as the .308, grendel, etc calibers. Again, sorry for the lack of clarity.

[bornproud]

You've got to balance your stated factors to make a decision.

The M1A costs more to acquire and to shoot (.308/7.62 is significantly more expensive than .223/5.56). It is also less likely to get you unwanted attention from LEO's, as long as you don't put a flash hider or a stock with a pistol grip or telescoping or folding buttstock on it. If you want to put optics on it, the options for doing that are more limited and more expensive than doing so on an AR-15. Assuming you get a full length barrel on it and not a SOCOM or a Scout, the M1A will reach out and touch someone further away than the AR-15. The AR-15 is very accurate at long range, maybe more so than the M1A, but if you're shooting more than paper, the M1A is more likely to get the job done at longer range.

The initial acquisition cost of an AR-15 is about half that of the M1A, and it costs a lot less to shoot it. It is also easier to shoot the AR-15 proficiently and it is easier to put optics on it. The downside is that it does run a risk of an ignorant LEO giving you problems for a perfectly legal rifle (assuming you keep it legal and don't create an illegal AW out of carelessness or ignorance). It requires more frequent and more detailed cleaning than the M1A. If you go hog wild on mall ninja accessories for an AR-15, you can easily make it more expensive than the M1A.

I'm sure there are more factors out there that could be listed, but I think these address your stated concerns.

A socom or a scout will still reach out farther than a AR-15 and touch someone.

[oldschool88]

Get the AR or at least the lower while you still can, chances are you will still be able to get the M1A later. Thats what I did, ammo prices played a role too.