TexasCHLforum.com

bagman45 wrote:TAM, can you share the specs (stock, scope, other parts, custom work, etc.) on your son's M1? It looks great!!

The action, barrel, and fire control group are all OEM for the "Loaded" model:

• Barrel: 22" premium air-gauged stainless steel, National Match medium weight, 1:11 twist
• Front Sight: 0.062" National Match military post
• Rear Sight: GI match grade non-hooded aperture, 0.052", adjustable .5 MOA/click windage and 1 MOA/click elevation
• Trigger: 2-stage military trigger, match tuned, 4.5-5.0 lb pull.

It's basically a standard M1A with a few upgraded parts.

In the photograph, the barreled action rides in a Sage Mod 0 EBR stock. The scope is a 3-12x50mm Horus Vision Hawk with the H425 reticle, mounted to an A.R.M.S. #18 M14/M1A Scope Mount.

More recently however, he has re-mounted the barreled action in the original synthetic M1A stock. The Sage EBR stock adds significant weight to the total package, making it less portable, and it does not add anything to the accuracy. If you have a FaceBook account, my son posted this video just yesterday of my daughter in law shooting his M1A at Elm Fork yesterday afternoon:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=493 ... ent_tagged

RSJ wrote:Accuracy* (note, this is SERIOUSLY my experiences, but a stock m1a is outshot by a FNAR in my opinion) I am willing to put my FNAR vs any stock m1a with same ammo, any day.

You'd be right about that, matching the standard M1A against the FNAR. The Loaded model (which is what's in my son's picture and what I also used to own) comes with a medium weight national match barrel along with some other upgrades (match trigger, etc.) and is noticeably more accurate than the standard barreled models. I don't think it would necessarily beat the FNAR with the standard weight barrel, but it is in the ballpark. I shot a number of .5" groups with my M1A using match ammo. But I also shot a bunch of 1.25" groups with it. But it would have to be a very high quality (read that "high priced") M1A/M14 indeed to compete with a heavy barreled FNAR.

RSJ wrote:^ 3-9 or 4-12?? He needs a 4-16X50 on that bad boy!

It's the 3-12x50 Hawk with the H425 reticle.

SQLGeek wrote:TAM now you're talking. Add in an EBR stock and you're really in business. Of course that isn't cheap!

My son's:

Have you considered the M1A? The Loaded model is in approximately the same price range as the FNAR, and you also get the same results that G.A. Heath reports when you show up at the range.....people start wandering over and asking how she shoots.....and the older guys nearer my age get that wistful far away look in their eyes. Mine was very reliable, and not too finicky as long as the bullets were in the 165-169 grain range. Bonus points: gas piston design from before gas piston guns were all the rage.

On the day that I bought my M1A Loaded a few years back, there was an FNAR on the shelf for a price within $10-$15 of the M1A price..........which at that level is an inconsequential difference. I went for the M1A because it was the fulfillment of a life-long love affair; but I have admired the FNAR since they first came out with them. I'm not a huge fan of the lines of the stock, but it's not ugly. I simply preferred the more "traditionally-american" lines of stocks like the M1A/M14/Garand/M1 Carbine, etc.

Even so, if accuracy is what you're after, you'll have to spend the price of an FN SCAR Heavy to get an AR10 that will shoot like the FNAR does right out of the box.....particularly the heavy barreled version.

On the plus side for the AR10—tons of aftermarket stuff, and as long as you pick the right brand, plenty of GI magazines at a decent price.

The FNAR is the "nicer" rifle of the two. An AR10 can be made as accurate as an FNAR, but the FNARs come out of the box with superior accuracy. However, as I recall, extras like magazines cost a lot more for the FNAR.

Also, if you're looking at both of those rifles, consider the FN SCAR Heavy in 7.62 NATO.