*AR vs *M1a

[GonnePhishin]

Opinions wanted. There is a slight possibility of getting an *AR type or a M1A rifle, at decent prices.
Which is easier to maintain? Who would go with the *AR and who would go with the M1A?

[Buck Elliott]

M-1A

[FWiedner]

That's not much information to base a decision on.

[Pisgah]

Both platforms have their supporters, and both have good and not-so-good features; overall, though, either can be a completely satisfactory rifle. Neither is particularly difficult to maintain; different systems, so the maintenance details differ, but keeping either one running is simple enough. After all, both were designed for issue to GIs.

Really, it boils down to you intended uses and personal preferences.

[jnyork]

M1A.

MAN'S rifle!!

[pwl44m]

I have to go with M1A, I already have ARs, and I dont have a 308.
Perry

[Hobie]

Yep, darn little info on which to base a decision. I have an AR, an M-1 Rifle, a couple of No. 4s and a 1891. I believe that EVERY citizen should have an AR-15 type.

[jdad]

If you can afford the ammo M1A or a German .308 http://www.gunauction.com/buy/11652801/

The AR, as I have recently found out, is a much more adaptable platform....and cheaper to feed.

[Lastmohecken]

This is like asking do you want an apple or an orange. We need to know what you want to do with the rifle. And how much money you want to spend on things like ammo, magazines, sights, etc. Is this a range toy, or do you plan to hunt with it, home defense, etc.

Aside from that, the M4 type AR's are probably harder to find at pre-panic prices then the M1a's are. Everyone wants a AR, while M1a's are reserved more for people with possibly more specialized interest. One is a poodle shooter, and the other is the civilian version of a main battle rifle. One shoots a sub-caliber 22 round, and the other shoots the heavy hitting .308 win or 7.62 x 51, of course you can go to different calibers via a different upper with the AR, some more satisfactory then others.

I would say get both, although I don't have an M1a, as I am more interested in FAL's and AR's, but I keep thinking about an M1a, and might already have one if the magazines were cheaper, plus I keep having trouble deciding on a Socom, Scout or full length rifle.

[GonnePhishin]

The intention is for defensive purposes: Also the window to purchase either is slipping away...
Hence, the request for your esteemed opinions.

One further option would be:

A *Ruger ranch rifle is currently on hand with some accessories. Would it just be better to purchase more boolits /components?

Thanks fellas

[GonnePhishin]

Jdad,
I wish I had that kind of money to blow

[jeepnik]

I have both. But if I'd have to choose, I'd say M1a. But look at the Scout/Squad model. The barrel is a bit shorter than the full size, which makes it handier. And, it's longer than the 16" SOCOM which has greater noise/flash and looses a bit more velocity.

I have said this before, but for my two cents worth, the M1a is what we should have had rather than the M16 ( the one I used was an M16 not the A1 version).

[Hobie]

A ranch rifle will suffice, but high capacity magazines of ANY make for ANY firearm are starting to be hard to come by.

[BigSky56]

Ones a battle rifle the other is well its someones idea of a battle rifle, me I'd get a battle rifle, now the round is ok a 55 gr fmc does bad things to the human body it doesnt just auger thru it cavitates tumbles and bounces around so your mini14 is more than serviceable for what you want its a M1a in 223 buy some bullets brass powder and primers or ammo if you dont load. danny

[Marvin S]

I think most people covered it. Two different guns and your choice to make based on the power factor you.

[wecsoger]

Boy, you can see some people's prejudices come out. (grin)

You are talking an apples and oranges decision, but my prefs, in order

M1A. More recoil, harder hitting round. With minimal training, you're good to 300 Meters. More training, you'll own 600 Meters. And the majority of obstacles and cover in between you can shoot through. Heavier to carry if you're spending long times on foot. After (hopefully) this craziness dies down, AR platforms will be a buyer's marker but the MBR (main battle rifle) always command good resale. So saying, I love the M1's, but I love the FN FAL's more. But that's just me.

AR platform. less recoil, easy to transition to. Minimal training you're good 100 - 200 meters. Because of lighter bullet, the learning curve for longer distances is harder. Easy to carry along with big load out of ammo. Shorty AR's are excellent in/around close buildings. Muzzle blast and sound, especially inside is a religious experience Slightly more fussy on maintenance.

Ruger Ranch. Still a good gun. Slightly less accurate than AR's but practical accuracy in minute-of-bad-guy is still there. Most of what I said about the AR platform, with exception of maintenance applies.

Feel free to PM if any other questions, and please post as to your final buying decision.

[Griff]

Yep, darn little info on which to base a decision. I have an AR, an M-1 Rifle<snip>. I believe that EVERY citizen should have an AR-15 type.

Hobie's comment is the reason I went with an AR, (that & I couldn't find the 1885 in .32-40 I really wanted)! I have an M1 (although it's a 1943 rebuilt in '51 as a NM and is .30-06. But now... neither is leavin'!

[MrMurphy]

Wecsoger has it more or less covered.


The M1A can be highly accurate, keeping it there is another issue. It's reasonably accurate 'as is' as most ARs are.

Overall, the AR is more accurate and easier to keep that way.

If you're primarily worried about long range (500+) a bolt action with a scope will generally do fine compared to an M1A. An accurate AR in 7.62 will compete or do better than the bolt (minute of angle at 1,000 is capable with a decent shooter and ammo).

If you're primarily worried about in close (200 and less).... the AR wins. Period. It's been our service rifle for 40 years because nothing 'really' better exists. I carried an M16 and M4 in my time in, and fit everywhere from aircraft cockpits to portapotties with a rifle. Rapid firing, low recoil, easy to hit with. Especially if you're not limited to ball ammo, 5.56mm more than does the job, as people all over the world have found out for the last few decades.

7.62 hits hard, and goes through barriers. So does 5.56. Look up Mk 262 and SOST ammo, both currently in use in Afghanistan. Barrier blind and hard hitting.

Some 7.62 goes through and just keeps going, sails right through without much damage. Known issue. Even AK's do that depending on the load. Know a guy who was hit in Rhodesia with an AK round and three days later (in pain) was back on duty from a thigh wound.

The M1a is heavier, most of the versions are harder to fit into tight spots if that's a possibility for you, and while the irons are among the best ever put on a rifle, if you need to put an optic on it, there are no "good" options, only some workable ones. I sold optics after getting out for a year, and I put a lot of optics on M-14s and M1As for people. The mounting possibilites are pretty limited depending on what you want to run.

A flattop AR on the other hand (in either caliber) the optic options are essentially unlimited.

We used the M14 for seven years. We've used the M16 for forty. It's also the STANAG/NATO magazine everything else complies with. No matter where you go in the world, other than stupidity, dirt and hydrogen the two most common things out there are AK magazines and M16 magazines. That may come into play at a later time.


The Ranch Rifle is good for about ten rounds rapid fire before it starts heating up and accuracy gets weird. If you can solve the problem with less than a mag, you're probably fine, if there's 5-10 guys and you're displacing and running away while firing like a crazy man, well.....don't expect great accuracy anyways.

[cas]

Apples and oranges.

One is cheaper to feed.

[Lastmohecken]

I will add that magazines are still easier to find by a wide margin for the AR then the M1a. Also options for optics are much better for the AR platform, which is one reason I have probably not invested in an M14 or M1a, although I keep thinking about it. Also the M1a can be picky about ammo, or so I have been told. You do need a main battle rifle caliber, but I believe I would about as soon have an AR or two and a good bolt action sporter with a scope in .308 Win.

So, bottom line if you are just getting into this get an AR if you see a good deal, and build your arsenal from there, unless the deal on the M1a is outstanding.

Example M1a rifle which comes with several 20rd Mags, because mags are an issue with the M1a. They are expensive, a little bit rare right now, and there are a lot of fake/junk M1a mags that don't work reliably. Bottom line, if the M1a comes with a bunch of US Mags that work, then I just might get the M1a. But if it's just the rifle with 1 factory mag, and the price is typical, then maybe the AR would be the better choice, especially if it's a good brand with a chrome lined barrel and chamber, Colt and Bushmaster (the original Bushmaster before Remington bought them out) come to mind, maybe DPMS, Windum is the new brand name made in the old Bushmaster Factory. Stag is probably good. Smith and Wesson seems to be ok. However I don't much care for the Model 1 uppers if you see that or can tell it has a Model 1. Model 1 might be fine, but I wouldn't pay as much for it. Rock Rivers are pretty good, I recently bought one of those with a chrome moly barrel, not chrome lined, but in this case, I think it's a great shooter, and came with a 2 stage match trigger. It's a Rock River Operator, and I bought it because it had a free float forend with half smooth and half pickenteny (misspelled I know) rail on it, for hanging weapon lights, etc.

[Chris83716]

I can't add anything to Mr Murphy's excellent post. I have a M1 Garand and multiple AR's. Shooting NRA Highpower the AR is much less trouble to do well with than either the Garand or M1A out to 600 yards. Say what you will about the poodle shooter being under powered but I have not found a volunteer yet to stand in front of my 600 yard target.

Chris

[M. M. Wright]

Was issued an M14 to replace my M2 carbine and just loved it. Went to the M16 and was underwhelmed. A few years later I traded for a Galil, you know the Israeli .308. Loved it and wish I still had it. But back to voting, I'll take the M1A.

[Rusty]

Given the choice of the AR or M1A I'd take the AR. Now it really doesn't mater since I doubt we'll be seeing either at a near reasonable price any time soon.

Personally I think the M1 Garand is a thing of beauty. The M1A not so much.

[44shooter]

I prefer the M1A because it can be loaded from the top singly or with stripper clips.

[Thunder50]

I would go with the AR. You can change the upper and have a variety of calibers to shoot, besides the 5.56. 9mm upper is easy shooting and cheap to load. Loaded with HP's it would work for a short range defensive platform.

[Molasses]

At another forum, named for one of the two types of rifles being discussed, the stock answer for any question involving "which one do I get?" is "GET BOTH!"

I like both rifles, but have to admit to favoritism towards the M1A platform; I spend more time messing with the SOCOM 16 or even my stock configuration M1A than the AR with either its carbine or A2 upper on it. It's got to be a masochistic thing about lugging around a bunch of weight and getting smacked with more recoil, because the AR is a lot easier to shoot well and comes out lighter both weigh and recoil-wise.

Speaking of weight, I was moving some stuff around the other day and discovered I had both a 500rd case of Speer .223 ammo and a 200rd case of Federal's M1A load in my hands at the same time. Just hefting them, I was not entirely sure they didn't weigh almost the same amount and there probably wasn't much difference in the total volume the boxes took up, either (they weren't the same shape, so the dimensions differed).

[MrMurphy]

Speaking as a former technical rep for a major manufacturer, when you get into AR's:


High end, dead nuts reliable and more accurate than an issued M16 assuming shooter competence and non Russian ammo:

LMT
Daniel Defense
LaRue Tactical
Noveske
Colt
Bravo Company Manufacturing (BCM)

All of these are either actual milspec (Colt) or at/above that level (the rest)

"Good" (90 of 100 guns will have no QC issues out of the box, or it's a minor fix):

Bushmaster/Windham
Rock River, depending on the day of the week it was built (not joking......)
S&W, these aren't milspec in the componentry but they hold up very well to extended harsh testing.

Hobby guns: i.e I would not recommend these unless it's going to be for range/hunting or you have extensive experience in fixing AR problems, as they can come with them out of the box:

DPMS (speaking to DPMS reps in person I had a hard time keeping a straight face). An Alaskan police department once had to return about 15 out of 20 rifles within one range session because there were so many QC issues, i.e guns would not survive one magazine and feed correctly, gas tubes misaligned, random other stuff......and that's only one example)
Spikes
Model 1
Olympic (which makes very accurate guns, but reliability is still sometimes questionable)
various other smaller brands

These guys "can" build good guns, but the odds of having a minor or major problem direct from the manufacturer is higher. Think of it as the difference between a Colt Series 70 and a Rock Island 1911, which one is likely to have the problems more, the company who's been building them for 102 years, or the other guy?

Run away from, i.e I wouldn't take it for free even if the alternative was a sharp stick:

Vulcan/ Hesse

Same company, different name, they're the AR equivalent of zip guns. You are literally taking your life in your hands firing one, they have been known to spontaneously disassemble i.e "Kaboom" on firing and shed major components.

This can happen to any gun, I've seen legit pictures of a Colt that detonated and blew the side of the receiver off (shooter survived, no injuries, due to eye protection and gloves/body armor), because they were using factory ammo and a round got mistakenly double or triple-charged by a loading machine. But that's a one in a million chance there, compared to Vulcan/Hesse guns which make Sten guns look 'well made".


When it comes to accuracy:

In Iraq the Marines got investigated for possible war crimes because the high preponderance of head shots among dead hadjis in one particular area of operations. Turns out the said hadjis were hiding (sensibly) and firing from cover with only their heads and weapons up. Marines were using M16A4s with 4X ACOGs, which are a 2-3 MOA rifle but with a scope, easily capable of hits in excess of 500m. For that matter, they do that with irons, but the scope makes it easier.

Since all they had was heads to shoot at.....lots of head shots. Some investigative group thought they were executing prisoners with headshots..... A scoped AR, factory stock with decent ammo from a major manufacturer and just about any reasonable shooter can make effective hits at 500m. With modern ammo, it actually does something when it arrives too. Ball ammo at that distance is running out of gas, but a hit's a hit.

With a 20" barrel, 55 grain works best under 200m or so. With the proper twist, a 62 grain load can remain effective further out (as was the original intent with the M249 machine gun) or penetrate more. With softpoint loads, either is more effective, as are OTM (open tip match) loads like the Mk 262, which with a hit to the chest, will generally cause the target to cease and desist his actions right then. The 262 is Black Hills's Sierra Match King load I believe, and guys I know who've shot people with it in Afghanistan say it does what it should, the target pretty much stops right there with 1-2 hits center mass.

A 50 round box of 262 was gifted to me by a friend as my last ditch pair of mags, if everything else is used up, these are the 'before they get to the wife and kid" load.

In the more common 16" carbines, either load weight will work, depending on the twist you have, but ballistically you're going to have performance issues past 200m with a 14.5 or 16" barrel if you're using plain ball.

It's still a hit, but it's basically 'poking holes'. Early on in Afghanistan a Special Forces guy used a 14.5" M-4 carbine with an ACOG and shot a Taliban from one hill to another. Estimated distance being 400-500m, and using M855 ball (62 grain). He kept hitting the guy, and the guy would fall over/grab himself, then look around more or less going "where the &()!&* is the shooter?" and they'd repeat the process. He hit the guy five or six times I think in the chest before he finally either didn't his some of his equipment (magazines, etc), or finally hit something vital enough to send him off to his 72 Virginians.

In one of the other early battles, a Special Forces sergeant using a suppressed "DMR"( (accurized, suppressed, scoped) M16 literally almost shot himself out of ammo from a flanking position on an attacking force hitting a hilltop. One to two rounds per guy, he shot up around a hundred guys I think. I'll have to look it up.

[piller]

+1 on the apples and oranges. I don't have an M1A, have never shot one, and know only what I have read and heard about them. No comment that I make on them would be worth listening to. I have a DPMS AR15, have shot many ARs, M16s, and have rarely had any problems with any of them. My DPMS must be one of the funny ones because it shoots anything I put in it in 5.56 without a problem one. It is accurate enough that I can keep the hole made by a 30 round magazine covered by the front sight at 50 yards, and can't see the hole at 100 yards. I haven't yet scoped it. I do not like the looks of the AR platform, but it is unquestionably an inherently accurate design. You can buy it in .308 in the AR10 platform. The only time I have ever had any failures to feed or eject in any AR is with the Colt manufactured ones. You couldn't pay me enough to shoot one again.

[FWiedner]

+1 on the apples and oranges. I don't have an M1A, have never shot one, and know only what I have read and heard about them. No comment that I make on them would be worth listening to. I have a DPMS AR15, have shot many ARs, M16s, and have rarely had any problems with any of them. My DPMS must be one of the funny ones because it shoots anything I put in it in 5.56 without a problem one. It is accurate enough that I can keep the hole made by a 30 round magazine covered by the front sight at 50 yards, and can't see the hole at 100 yards. I haven't yet scoped it. I do not like the looks of the AR platform, but it is unquestionably an inherently accurate design. You can buy it in .308 in the AR10 platform. The only time I have ever had any failures to feed or eject in any AR is with the Colt manufactured ones. You couldn't pay me enough to shoot one again.

My DPMS A-15 must be the second one in the batch that survived the gruelling "one magazine" test, and it's actually managed to empty every single loaded magazine I've put into it. There's been a couple of jams that were resolved with typical IA steps, but such things happen. Of course, I've only had it for a couple of years and put 2 or 3 thousand rounds through it, so I will continue to anticiptate it's imminent and disasterous failure. Of course I've got 5 of them, so I guess I'll make up for the lack of quality in volume.

I can make a somewhat similar performance claim for my DPMS LR-308, except that I've put less that a thousand rounds through it. It's killed forty or fifty hogs and it's always had the next round ready when I needed it.

I will point out that I assembled these myself and used all DPMS part, so maybe I had better quality control on the line but I'm still using the same (reportedly) shizzle materials that the factory does.

Maybe It's the application. I keep them clean and lubed and don't play "spray and pray" or 'commando".



I like my LR-308, but would happily take an M1A into the inventory. 16" or 18" would be my preference. Personally, I think both the AR and the M1A are fine and reliable firearms. They both shoot true when compared in the same caliber. I don't believe that parts for one are any more readily available than the other unless you are looking at the AR in .223/5.56mm, and then there is a literal flood. The .308/7.62mm guns weight about the same . Given a choice between the two I might choose the M1A just because I find the lines more elegant and it's in a more traditional battle rifle configuation, and I'm not sure you could club the **** out of a gooner with an AR. There are adavantages to having a one-piece and particularly a walnut rifle stock.

[wfo]

Have you considered the AR-10? You get the benefits of the AR style platform in a .308.

[L_Kilkenny]

I won't buy any gun based on "what if" but instead buy guns that I can/do use and they may very well fit into a "what if" scenario. It's the same mindset that keeps me owning/carrying full size revolvers instead of compact brass chuckers. To me the M1A is a large door stop. There's not a dang thing I can do with it around here other than burn ammo at the range. That and the fact that I like short and compact carbines put me solidly into the AR camp. 5 round mags for coyote hunting, bigger mags for range fun and "what if's".

[2ndovc]

Recently did something similar. wanted to add a second AR heavy barrrel or Standard M1A to go with my SOCOM 16. I got a good deal on a walnut stocked M1A so that kind of pushed me in that direction. I'd still like another AR but we'll see what happens.

I was going to go the Fulton Armory route for the M1a but they were pretty backordered up.

jb

[GonnePhishin]

Thanks fellas and Mr. Murphy for your input and knowledge.

[tman]

If you aren't looking to refight WW2. Get an M4. An AK47 kinda splits the difference between the M14 and the M16.

[FWiedner]

If you aren't looking to refight WW2. Get an M4. An AK47 kinda splits the difference between the M14 and the M16.

Heh, we actually won WW2...

[tman]

If the Germans' had their MP 44 in 1941, the Soviets would have had a bit of a rougher time. How would have the MP44 stacked up against the M1 Garand? Glad Hitler dissaproved of the manufacture of the Grandaddy of Assault rifles.

[AkRay]

Since you already have the Ruger Ranch Rifle in 223, I think you have the high cap defensive rifle side of things well taken care of. If you have a source of 308 or 7.62x51mm ammo, you might go with the M1A. More power if it's ever called for, and that might turn out to be important.

[LGW]

I don't own either one. If I did it would be an M1A.

1. It's a 308. If you can hit what you aim at and you only have to shoot it once.

2. Reliability. Watched a cool internet video. They dragged an M1A by a chain with a pickup down 1/2 mile of rocky dirt road complete with potholes and mud puddles. Hosed it off and fired it.

3. Proven reliability in the sandy and dirty environments of Afghanistan.

4. Looks more like a Bubba hunting rifle than an "evil black rifle". If you ever have to bug out of Dodge on foot no point in scaring the "low information citizens" or needlessly attracting law enforcement.

5. Less plastic.

Well I have almost talked myself out of my search for an 1886. Be still, my heart.

[MrMurphy]

https://danieldefense.com/TortureTest

This is one of the better rifles out there, and Larry Vickers is Delta Force's former gunsmith as well as a trained operator. It's also not unusual for most rifles built correctly to run this way. He's using an Aimpoint Micro optic.



To the DPMS owners, glad you got good ones. Samples of one or two are what they are, my replies are concerning across hundreds of rifles. You start to see patterns.

As to 7.62mm and only needing to hit guys once, there's been guys in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam who required multiple hits from .30-06, .308, etc. In one case, a friend of mine in Iraq in 2005 shot a hadji who had an RPG with a burst of .50 cal and blew him off his feet. Quite surprisingly for the crew involved the guy slowly started to roll over and reach for his RPG despite being hit by 3-4 .50 BMG rounds. Another burst fixed the issue, but NEVER discount how willing some people are to continue a fight. Read up on some Medal of Honor citations. Guys taking 5-6 hits from 8mm, 6.5mm, etc and continuing to not only fight but advance and kill the bad guys.

A 7.62 to the chest 'should' stop someone, but so should a 7.62X39mm or 5.56mm, and all of those can have guys require multiple hits.



As to Hitler and the Stg-44.... he, too was a veteran, of World War One, (people forget) surviving three years or so in the infantry as a runner. He thought that five rounds of hard-hitting 8mm in the good old reliable Mauser was good enough for him, so it was good enough for the newer guys. After all, who'd need more than five rounds of such a hard hitting round with that classic heavy wood stock.

Sound familiar to anyone here.........

Technology advances. Old stuff still works, but it doesn't mean it is necessarily still better than the new. I'd use a Garand if it was issued to me (or a Mauser) but not over an M-4 or AK.

[Pisgah]

Strictly in terms of dollars and cents, it makes by far the most sense to accessorize your Ranch Rifle as you will and stock up on ammo.

Jeff Cooper advised that the best bad times rifle is the one you have; use it to take the better one you want from someone else.

[Mike Hunter]

M1A or an AR, in my mind there is no comparison.

On one side you have an plastic/aluminum rifle designed to shoot a varmint cartridge (not even legal for deer in most states) and has a gas system that dumps gas and unburnt powder back into the chamber area (pukes in it’s own mouth).

Or, you have a rifle designed as a main battle rifle, made of wood and steel, shooting a cartridge that is capable of taking any game animal in the continental US. The M1A is a modified Garand action which was developed in the late 30s, so the design has been around for 70 + years.

Another way to look at it is that the M14s currently used by US forces in theater were originally purchased back in the late 50s and 60s, rebuilt several times…but still being used.

The AR15s, M16s, M16A1s and most of the M16A2s purchased by the US in the 60 thru 90s have been rendered to the scrap pile….not even worth rebuilding.

I have carried both, one is very light weight cheap/fun to shoot and you can hang a lot of bling off of it. The other is accurate, powerful and dependable.

It all depends on what you want

[MrMurphy]

The AR design has been around since the 50s, a whole 20 years less.


Most of the M14s carried in theater, having spoken to a lot of the guys doing the carrying, spend a lot of time stuffed in a Humvee. A lot of them got issued with ONE magazine, maybe two, and delinked ball ammo for them.

Majority that I'm aware of have been replaced by scoped M16A4s, simply because they work, and the users are familiar with them. The M14 hasn't been a primary issued weapon since 1969 or so (my dad took one to Vietnam in 1968 and all the guys there thought his unit were snipers, as they all had gotten M16s by then).

I wouldn't turn down an M14, they're powerful and they work. But I wouldn't choose one over an AR unless weight was not an issue, heavy penetration was needed for every shot, and free ammo from God was guaranteed to arrive daily.

7.62 belongs in belt feds (having carried the M240 extensively), for an infantry rifle, for the majority of people, the 5.56 does fine. Having a 7.62 rifle around is handy, but I wouldn't want it for every single mission. A 7.62mm AR fills the role better than the M14, which is why the SR-25, OBR and (for the Brits) LMT rifles have been adopted.

[Sixgun]

Sure enjoyed reading these posts, especially Mr Murphy's. Have learned a bunch too. I have mostly been an levergun man but do have both an AR (Colt LE6940) and an M1-A. The Colt has logged 1150 rounds with no failures to function, all the time using my handloads of 25 gr. of IMR 4895 and a 69 gr. Sierra MK. Hits clay birds out to 500 meters.

One thing I am puzzled about is that on the M1-A, you can litterly look into the action and see the hammer drop. Don't you think that would be a place for dirt to fall into and jam things up?------------Sixgun

[92&94]

I believe that EVERY citizen should have an AR-15 type.

I'm a bit surprised no one has quoted Sam Elliott yet:
"Sir, if the time comes I need one, there'll be plenty lying on the ground. "


I have no opinion on the subject, just had to get that quote in. Lots of good info here.

[olyinaz]

Split the diff.

My Bushmaster LR-308, mid-length gas system, 16" carbine, with an Endine hydraulic recoil buffer is the smoothest shooting 7.62 NATO rifle I've ever had, and I've had a bunch. The next closest would be the Valmet M76 that I had briefly in the 1980s...and would dearly LOVE to have back.

Good luck finding anything but an M1A for reasonable prices now.

Oly

[BigSky56]

Sixgun, The 16 was designed to be used with extruded powder per Mr. Stoner not the ball powder the pentagon pushed for the extra fps. That ball powder cost soldiers their lives , the whip and chills at the pentagon wouldnt listen and said the men werent cleaning there rifles the right way the perfumed princes in RVN wouldnt stand up for their men the pentagon then added the forward assist that was not a cure for the problem just a bandaid. As Mike said in his post the gas system dumps hot gas unburnt powder and the clay/graphite coating off ball powder into the action then add in whatever climate your in. The AR is fine for a homeowner but its not a battle rifle with its gas system. Always run extruded powder for best results and the 55 gr fmc in a 1-12 bbl is a killer IF you can get it thru the foliage to the target. The 14 was a better back up gun for me than a 16 but bulky if I had to do the run thru the jungle thing I got a swedish K & P35 same ammo. danny

[RustyJr]

I'll stick with my AR. As others have mentioned ammo is cheaper (if you can find it now) and more importantly you have less chance of over penetration in more populated areas with the 5.56/223.


RustyJr

[MrMurphy]

Once the government listened to the designer (you know, a WW2 Marine) and actually used the powder in the ammo it was DESIGNED to use, the AR generally ran fine.

Lubed, as any mechanism should be not 'run it dry, oil attracts dirt' which is still being preached in places....they run, just fine, hard, everywhere.

Look up "Filthy 14". Running 20-30,000 rounds without a single cleaning and adding nothing but lube and ammo under field conditions is not unusual.


Rifles run in sand, jungle, forest, and everywhere else when maintained even a little bit. The M1 series had the same issue with oil vs Lubriplate.

[Mike Hunter]

The AR 15 was initially adopted by the USAF, as a replacement for the M1 carbine that their base security forces used. If you read the initial requirement document, the .223 had to have equal or better penetration and wounding capabilities as the .30 carbine cartridge. Remember, the 30 carbine was meant to be a replacement for the pistol. It was by sheer accident and politics that the M16 was adopted (read: forced upon) by the USMC and USA.

Since its adoption, the M16 has had over 200 modification work orders (MWOs) (read: fixes) to make it more accurate, dependable and lethal. That’s a lot of “fixes”.

OTOH The 7.62 x 51 was derived from its parent cartridge the 30-06. The 30-06 from the onset was designed by the war department to be an infantryman’s cartridge. The 7.62 x 51 was designed to meet 30-06 ballistics and killing power but in a shorter package. The M14 uses the same operating system as the M1 Garand. Considering that the M1 Garand was first adopted in 1937/38… I would say that it’s proven.

I know a lot of guys love their AR platforms, and really can’t fault them; cheap to shoot, light recoil overall a fun rifle. Carried one for many years, but today, now that I’ve retired, my choice is the M1A.

Oh, and back to the OPs original question, personally the M1A is way too much for an in house defensive rifle… you say you have a Ruger Ranch rifle…. Stick with that, buy more ammo/magazines …very reliable action (based on the M14) …ok I had to twist the knife.

V/R

Mike Hunter

[GonnePhishin]

The deal for the ar has fallen through but still a maybe on an M1a. However, I like what Mike Hunter said:

Oh, and back to the OPs original question, personally the M1A is way too much for an in house defensive rifle… you say you have a Ruger Ranch rifle…. Stick with that, buy more ammo/magazines …very reliable action (based on the M14) …ok I had to twist the knife.

Thanks again to everyone who responded to my question. I have mucho respect for all you guys on this board.